Sahrul Nisha and Others Vs Vijay Shankar Pandey, Driver U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Region, Faizabad and 2 Others

The instant First Appeal From Order has been preferred by the original claimants in Claim Petition No.68 of 2013, against the impugned judgment and order dated 19.09.2025 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/ Appellate Tribunal, Sultanpur, which is registered as Miscellaneous Case No.40 of 2024, whereby the application for restoration of the claim petition filed under Order IX, Rule 4, C.P.C. alongwith an affidavit 4C and an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been dismissed.

¶11

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the claim petition filed by the appellants was dismissed in default under Order IX, Rule 3, C.P.C., in absence of both the parties. The restoration application was filed by the appellants after some delay and for that reason, an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act was also filed along with the restoration application. However, the learned Appellate Tribunal taking hypertechnical approach, dismissed the application for condonation of delay and the application for restoration.

¶12

After hearing submissions from both sides, with the observation that during pendency of claim petition, the appellants had effected service of notice on the opposite parties belatedly and on 22.10.2013, the case was

¶13

FAFO No. 497 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

called out several times but none appeared for the claimants, and therefore, at 3:00 P.M., an opportunity was granted to the appellants/ petitioners and a date 19.11.2013 was fixed. However, on the said date, none appeared for either side and therefore, the claim petition was dismissed in default on the part of the parties. The ground taken by the petitioner no.1 that she had gone to meet her ailing brother, is not proved by evidence on record.

¶16

As the present appeal is confined only to the extent of the dismissal of the restoration application 3A and application for condonation of delay 5C by the Tribunal, a prayer has been made to grant an opportunity to the appellants/ petitioners to participate in hearing of the claim petition on its merit, which was dismissed in default of the appellants, in the absence of the opposite parties.

¶17

The appeal is liable to be heard finally, at this stage, and there is no need to issue notice to the respondents in the present appeal, which has been filed for a limited prayer: to restore the claim petition to its original number.

¶18

The Motor Accident Claim Petition is filed under Chapter 12 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, or under Section 166 or 163A. This Chapter is a beneficial piece of legislation and the Claims Tribunal should take a liberal approach while deciding the restoration application filed by the claimants/ petitioners, in a case where the claim petition has been dismissed in default of the appellants and that too in the absence of both sides. Taking of a hyper-technical approach by the Tribunal, in such a matter, is likely to defeat the ends of justice and the legislative intent behind the enactment of the legislation, in as much as, it is incumbent on a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to decide the claim petition on the basis of evidence, oral or documentary, adduced by the petitioners as available on record, instead of dismissing the claim petition in default.

¶19

In view of above, the appeal is allowed.

¶20

The impugned order passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) is set aside and the Claims Tribunal concerned is directed to restore the claim petition to its original number and issue a

¶21

FAFO No. 497 of 2025

¶22

3

¶23

notice to the counsel of the opposite parties regarding the restoration of the petition. In case, some of the opposite parties have not put in appearance before the Tribunal as yet, a fresh notice would be issued to them and specific directions for taking steps would be issued to the petitioners by the Tribunal. After ensuring service of notice/ presence of the opposite parties, the Tribunal shall proceed to hear the claim petition on merits.

¶24

With the above directions, the appeal is allowed .

¶25

(Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.)

¶26

November 15, 2025

¶27

Mohd. Sharif

¶28

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD SHARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sahrul Nisha and Others v. Vijay Shankar Pandey, Driver U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Region, Faizabad and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sahrul Nisha and Others v. Vijay Shankar Pandey, Driver U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Region, Faizabad and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Amit Mishra Alias Anjul vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Rajkali vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

Nitin Kumar Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Amar Bahadur vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Krishna Kumar @ Krishna Kumar Mishra and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and 3 Others

Mohd. Rafiq Khan @ Rafik Khan and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.and Another