Decided on June 13,2016

Dilipsinh Gajubha Jadeja Appellant
Kana Dida Bharwad Respondents


- (1.) Heard learned advocate Mr. Premal S. Rachh for the petitioner and learned advocate S.M. Kikani for the respondents.
(2.) The petitioner herein is the original claimant, whereas the respondents are original opponents before Motor Accident Claim Tribunal,. Jamkhambaliya in Misc. Claim Application No.3 of 2009. Such application for restoration of the main Claim Petition No.965 of 1998 has been dismissed by the impugned judgment and order dated 30.7.2015 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.) and 4th Additional District Judge, Jamkhambaliya mainly on the ground that since the original Claim Case No.965 of 1998 was dismissed for default on 13.2.2007 and thereafter, such application was filed on 2.7.2009, there is delay of more than 2 years and 5 months in applying for restoration of the claim petition and therefore, when there is no application to condone such delay, the claim petition cannot be restored on the file of the Tribunal.
(3.) At the outset, it is to be recollected that the law on such issue is well settled whereby it is settled legal position that nobody should be thrown out without extending justice to him, mainly on technical ground as done by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment. To recollect the facts, it becomes clear that initially, the claimant has preferred Claim Petition No.965 of 1998 because of injuries sustained by him in a vehicular accident before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal at Jamnagar. It is undisputed fact that initially, one Vanrajsinh J. Sodha was appointed as an advocate by the petitioner - claimant, however when said V.J. Sodha had been appointed as Public Prosecutor, he left the private practice and joined the service. Meanwhile, Court of Joint District Judge at Jamkhambaliya was started and therefore, cases from Jamnagar Court were transferred to Jamkhambaliya but unfortunately, the claim petition of the claimant - petitioner has been wrongly transferred to Jamkhambaliya since the petitioner is resident of Jamnagar and therefore, his claim is to be continued in Jamnagar Court only. Therefore, in fact, it was a bonafide mistake on the part of the administration of the District Court and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in transferring the Claim Petition No.965 of 1998 from Jamnagar Court to Jamkhambaliya Court. The petitioner has also contended that he has repeatedly inquired about his case but because of on -going process of computerization, nobody has given him correct information about the actual transfer of his claim petition from Jamnagar to Jamkhambaliya and ultimately, it was dismissed for default by the Tribunal at Jamkhambaliya on 13.2.2007. Thereupon, when the claimant came to know about dismissal, he preferred such application contending all such facts and specific statement that when Jamkhambaliya Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain his claim, it does not have jurisdiction to dismiss it and therefore, his claim petition needs to be taken on record, i.e. to restore on the file of the Court for deciding it on its own merits.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.