Delhi High Court
Sunita vs Suresh Kumar & Others on 5 September, 2000
Author: Khan
Bench: B Khan
ORDER
Khan, J.
1. One Amar Singh, a daily wager died in road accident on 14.8.92. His widow and minor children, appellants herein filed a claim suit No.M-40/98 for grant of compensation on 15..11.93. Issues were framed in this petition on 21.5.96 and case was fixed for evidence of appellant for 8.5.97. Appel- lant, however, failed to turn up and the claim petition was dismissed in default vide order dated 8.5.97. Their explanation is that appellant-1 was residing in Sonepat and was taken ill and remained confined to bed and could not appear as witness on 8.5.97 and her two minor children were not in a position to appear and depose before the Tribunal.
2. Appellants thereafter moved an application for setting aside dismissal order on 7.7.97, notice whereof was issued to respondents. But this appli- cation also met the same fate and was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 13.10.1998. They again moved an application for restoration on 12.11.98 for setting aside order of dismissal dated 13.10.98 on the ground that their counsel Sh.Suresh Sharma who was also resident of Sonepat suffered an accident on 10.4.98 and was bed ridden upto 9.10.98 and, there- fore, could not take steps to file process fee and get notice issued for 13.10.98. Notice was issued in this application and reply was also filed by respondents 1 and 2. No reply was filed by respondent No.3. All the same this application was also dismissed vide impugned order dated 12.8.99 on the ground that appellants failed to prosecute their claim petition dili- gently and had not offered any explanation as to why steps could not be taken by them for service of respondents for 9.7.97 or 18.3.98.
3. Ordinarily no fault could be found with the impugned order which had listed appellants' continuous failure to prosecute their claim petition. But still the approach adopted by the trial court could not be said to be just and human in the circumstances. Trial court had overlooked the status and antecedent of appellants who are legal representatives of a poor illit- erate daily wager and were not conversant with the niceties of legal proc- ess. Therefore, looking to their position and background, they should not be deprived of their claim for compensation mainly because they had failed to file the process fee. It could as well be that they may not have even afforded to pay it but that by itself could not come in the way of the court to summon respondents without such process fee. Moreover, appellants have offered an explanation that their counsel had taken ill and could not file process fee in time. This constituted a good cause for the restoration of their claim petition which was still to be contested by them on merit. Therefore, no prejudice would have been caused to any one much less the respondents, if their claim petition was restored by adopting a liberal approach and it was allowed to be disposed of on merits. Accordingly, I allow this appeal and set aside impugned order dated 12.8.99 passed by MACT concerned. Suit No.M-40/98 shall revive. Appellants to appear before the trial court on 15th September, 2000 and trial court shall issue fresh notice dispensing with the requirement of process fee to be filed by the appellants and shall take steps on its own to summon respondents and proceed with the disposal of the claim petition under law.
