AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B. Manohar, J. - Appellants are the claimants. They filed this appeal challenging the order dated 21-01-2008 dismissing Misc. Petition No. 24/2006 passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Hubli, filed under Order 9. Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The appellants herein had filed a claim petition in MVC No. 1001/1992 before the Additional District Judge, contending that husband of the first claimant and father of the second claimant died in the road traffic accident occurred on 18-07-1992. Subsequently, it was transferred and renumbered as MVC No. 787/1995. However, the said claim petition came to be dismissed on 23-4-2001. Thereafter, Misc. Petition No. 47/2001 was filed seeking restoration of the said claim petition. The said claim petition was restored on 18-06-2005. Even after restoration of the said claim petition, the appellants have not taken any interest to argue the matter. Accordingly, once again the claim petition was dismissed on 31-3-2006. Thereafter, Misc. Petition No. 24/2006 was filed under Order 9, Rule 9 of CPC for restoration of the said claim petition. The learned Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), by its order dated 21st January, 2008 dismissed the said Misc. petition on the ground that there is no merit and bona fide in the claim made by the claimants. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal has been filed.
I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders and other relevant records.
The records clearly disclose that Viranagowda Patil died in the road traffic accident occurred on 18-07-1992. The wife and daughter of the deceased had filed a claim petition, which was numbered as MVC No. 1001/1992. In view of establishment of Additional Court, the said MVC was renumbered as MVC No.787/1995. Subsequently, the said claim petition was dismissed on 23-04-2001 and it was restored in the year 2005. However, it was once again dismissed on 31-3-2006. Against the said order, Misc. Petition was filed for restoration of the claim petition that also came to be dismissed. Being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed.
Though I do not find any justification to restore the claim petition, looking at the fact that the wife has lost her husband at young age and daughter has lost love and affection of her father, I am of the opinion that if the claim petition is dismissed, the parties will be put to great hardship. The advocates have also contributed for the dismissal of the claim petition. But for the mistake of the advocates, the parties should not be penalized. On sympathetical ground, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case to set aside the order made in Misc. Petition No. 24/2006 and restore the claim petition, directing the Tribunal to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible, subject to imposing some penalty and denying interest for the said period. Accordingly, I pass the following:
Order
The appeal is allowed. The order dated 21-01-2008 made in Misc. Petition No.24/2006 passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.). Hubli is set aside, MVC No. 787/1995 is restored to file subject to payment of cost of Rs. 2,000/- payable to the Advocate appearing for the Insurance Company.
On payment of the said cost, the Tribunal shall take up the claim petition and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible. Both the parties are directed to appear before the Court below on 12-04-2016 without expecting any further notice.
However, it is made clear that the claimants are not entitled to interest from 23-04-2001 till 14-03-2016.