JUDGMENT Rakesh Tiwari, J.
1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2. This writ petition arises out of an order dated 6.11.2003 passed by the Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Etawah dismissing in default the. Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 88/01 filed by the petitioner and against the order dated 27.2.2004 by which the restoration application of the petitioner has been rejected.
3. It appears that the petitioner sustained injuries in a motor accident and became unable to work and hence she filed a claim petition before the District Judge, Etawah. The District Judge transferred the claim petition to the Court of Vth Additional District Judge, Etawah. The petitioner had adduced evidence in support of her case and was also cross-examined by respondent Nos. 2 and 3, i.e., Sri Virendra Singh and the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. During the course of cross-examination, respondent No. 3, i.e.. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. filed a transfer application before the District Judge, Etawah, for transferring the case from the Court of Vth Additional District Judge, Etawah, to any other Court. The District Judge vide order dated 31.8.2002, transferred the case to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Etawah. where it was registered on 2.9.2002 as M.A.C.P. No. 88 of 2001. On 6.9.2004, when the claim petition was fixed for further evidence, the case was called out but none of the parties was present. The Tribunal fixed the claim petition for 11.10.2002 for adducing further evidence/arguments and also ordered for informing the counsel for the parties about the same. From the order-sheet appended as Annexure-1 to the writ petition, it appears that the Court was vacant from 11.10.2002 to 1.7.2003. During this period the claim petition was adjourned on several dates, i.e., 16.11.2002, 23.12.2002, 4.2.2003, 14.3.2003, 15.3.2003, 24.4.2003, 1.7.2003 and 1.8.2003. On 1.7.2003 and 1.8.2003, the counsel for the petitioner was not present. The counsel for the Insurance Co. sought time and the claim petition was adjourned to 3.9.2003 for further evidence. On 3.9.2003 also the counsel for the petitioner was not present. It appears from the order-sheet that since the counsel for the petitioner was not present on 8.10.2003, the Tribunal fixed the claim petition for 6.11.2003 and also directed the office to inform the counsel for the petitioner about the order. The order dated 8.10.2003 is reproduced as under :
"8.10.2003: Pukar par Yacht ke Adhivakta Hajir Nahin aye. Beema Company ke Adhivakta Hajir Hai Adesh Yachi Ke Adhivakta Ko Soochana Dee Jawe Tatha 6. 1 1.2003 Ko Waste Shesh Sakshya Pesh Ho."
On the next date fixed, i.e., 6.11.2003 the impugned order was passed dismissing the claim petition in default as under :
"6.11.2003 : Pukar karai gayee. Vipakshi Sankhya 2 ke Vidwan Adhivakta Upasthit Hai Bar Bar Pukare gaye. Yachi wa Vipakshi Sankhya 1 Ke or se koi Upasthit Nahin Huwa Hai. Pratiksha 3.10 Baje tak kee gayee.
Adesh Yachika Yachi ki anupasthitt me Suyava Kharif kee Jati hai."
4. The petitioner filed an application for restoration of the claim petition. The Tribunal rejected the said application holding that despite several dates having been fixed, i.e., 16.11.2002, 23.12.2002, 4.2.2003, 14.3.2003, 24.4.2003, 1.7.2003. 1.8.2003, 3.9.2003 and 8.10.2003 but none of the counsel for the parties was present and as such the claim petition was dismissed in default as they should have made efforts to know the dates fixed in the claim petition.
5. The counsel for the petitioner states that it is apparent from the order-sheet that the Court was vacant on all the aforesaid dates till 1.7.2003 and further, neither he nor the counsel for the respondents had any knowledge of the transfer of the claim petition nor they had any knowledge about the order passed on it, hence they were not present on 1.8.2003 and 3.9.2003. He further submits that in any case the counsel for the Insurance Company was directed by order dated 8.10.2003 to inform the counsel for the petitioner about the date fixed in the case for further evidence but he had not done so and the Tribunal without verifying whether the counsel for the petitioner had been Informed or not about the fact by the counsel for the Insurance Company proceeded ex parte. The fact is apparent from the impugned order dated 6.11.2003 dismissing the claim petition in default.
6. From a perusal of the impugned order it is apparent that the Tribunal has not dealt with this aspect of the matter while passing the impugned order as to whether the order dated 8.10.2003, for informing the counsel for the petitioner was complied with by the counsel for the insurance Company or not. The order on the restoration application is also silent in this regard and the Tribunal has only mentioned the dates on which the Court was vacant holding that the counsel should have made efforts to know the dates. This observation of the Tribunal appears to be misdirected as It is a case of the petitioner that she had not been served with a copy of the transfer application and further that the counsel for the Insurance Company had not informed about the order dated 8.10.2003.
7. The Tribunal disbelieved the second ground taken in the restoration application for recalling the impugned order that the petitioner was ill. There is no basis for disbelieving the fact that the petitioner was ill. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice the claim petition is liable to be heard and decided on merits.
8. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders are quashed.
9. The Tribunal is directed to decide the claim petition afresh on merits by a reasoned /speaking order after affording opportunity to the parties to lead evidence preferably within a period of four months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.