Gujarat High Court
Pratapsinh Ganpatbhai Baman (Labana) vs Prakash Girvarsinh Nayak on 27 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3050/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3050 of 2025
==========================================================
PRATAPSINH GANPATBHAI BAMAN (LABANA)
Versus
PRAKASH GIRVARSINH NAYAK & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NISHIT A BHALODI(9597) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR PALAK H THAKKAR(3455) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 27/11/2025
ORAL ORDER
[1.0] By way of present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought for an
appropriate writ/ direction / order to quash and set aside the
order passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Lunawada, Dahod in Misc. Application No.133/2021 dated
05.07.2023 and restore the original MACP No.74/2012 with
appropriate directions.
[2.0] Learned advocate for the insurance company has opposed
the petition on the ground that the insurance company is not at
fault and insurance company should not be fastened with or
saddled with the liability of interest for the aforesaid period as
due to negligence on the part of the claimant, claim petition was
dismissed. Even, the claimant has filed an undertaking that he
will not claim the interest for the period from the date of
dismissal of claim petition till the claim petition gets restored.
[3.0] Having heard the learned advocate appearing for the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3050/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
respective parties, it appears that the petitioner herein - original
claimant had preferred MACP No.74 of 2012 before the learned
MAC Tribunal (Auxi.), at Lunawada which came to be dismissed on
29.07.2021 pursuant to which the original claimant preferred
application being Misc. Application No.133/2021 seeking
restoration of MACP No.74/2012 which also came to be
dismissed.
[4.0] Perusing the record, it appears that the claim petition being
MACP No.74/2012 was filed in the year 2012 and thereafter the
matter remained sine die for a long time and issues were framed
only in the year 2021 and due to COVID-19 pandemic, the
claimant was not in contact of his advocate and/or the learned
advocate appearing before the Tribunal on behalf of claimant
also remained absent and hence, the claim petition was
dismissed for want of prosecution on 26.07.2021. If we peruse
the order dated 26.07.2021, which is produced at Annexure-B to
the present petition, it appears that the learned Tribunal has
dismissed the claim petition on the ground that time and again
the claim petition being adjourned on the ground of absence of
either the claimant or his advocate and the claimant has not
come forward to prove his case and therefore, the learned
Tribunal was pleased to close the right of evidence of the
claimant on 14.07.2021 and claim petition was taken for final
decision and order dated 26.07.2021 was passed.
[5.0] Perusing the record, it appears that the insurance company
was not served with the notice as address of insurance company
was changed. The opponent No.1 appeared before the Tribunal
and opponent No.2 though served, remained absent and matter
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3050/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
was pending for service of notice to opponent No.3 - insurance
company. Though the issues were framed, subsequently the
claim petition was dismissed for want of prosecution in absence
of any evidence, the Tribunal was pleased to adjudicate the claim
petition on merits. Pursuant to the same, the claimant filed
restoration application being MACMA No.133/2021 and learned
Tribunal MACT (Main), Dahod was pleased to reject the said
application on 05.07.2023 holding that it does not fall under the
purview of Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure to
consider the restoration application as MACP No.74/2021 was
decided by judgment and the issue as to whether the view
adopted by her learned predecessor was in right perception or
not, whether it was in accordance with the law or not and
whether her learned predecessor ought to have considered the
matter on merits or not was the subject of the restoration
application and on this ground, the restoration application was
rejected.
[6.0] Without discussing about the manner in which the claim
petition was dismissed and the restoration application was
rejected, it is needless to say that though the matter was on the
stage of service of notice to opponent No.3 - insurance company
and issues were framed in an unready matter and subsequently it
was dismissed for want of prosecution, nowhere it is discussed
about the merits of the case though the learned Tribunal while
deciding the restoration application opined about the merits of
the case. Perusing the earlier order of dismissed for default, the
then learned Tribunal has not adjudicated the merits of the case.
It is needless to say that under Sections 158(6) and 166(4) of the
MV Act, it is the duty of the learned Tribunal to award just
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3050/2025 ORDER DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
compensation rather than to dismiss the claim petition on the
technical ground and the learned Tribunal ought to have restored
the claim petition.
[7.0] In view of the above, without further discussing on merits
of the petition and in view of the decision of the coordinate
Bench of this Court in the case of Bharatbhai Narsinghbhai
Chaudhary & Ors. vs. Malek Rafik Malek Himantbhai Malek &
Ors. reported in 2011 (2) GLR 1324, present petition deserves
consideration and MACP No.74/2021 deserves to be restored to
its original file. Resultantly, Motor Accident Claim Petition No.74
of 2012 is hereby ordered to be restored to its original file and
learned Tribunal is directed to decide the same at the earliest
preferably within a period of SIX MONTHS from the date of
receipt of present order and after giving opportunity to both the
parties.
[8.0] It is made clear that the petitioner - original claimant shall
not be entitled to claim interest for the aforesaid period as he
remained negligent since the year 2012 in proceeding with the
claim petition and even on the ground of equity also, the
insurance company cannot be saddled with the liability of
interest for the aforesaid period.
[9.0] With aforesaid direction, petition is allowed.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J.)
Ajay
