S.N. Srivastava, J.
1. Petitioner has approached the Court for the relief claimed in the instant petition founded on the grievances that Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge (Court No. 17) Meerut by means of its order dated 4.2.2004, rejected the condonation application and also the restoration application filed against dismissal of Motor Accident Claims Case No. 37 of 2002 which came to be dismissed for default of the petitioner as also the opposite parties.
2. A brief resume of necessary facts is that the aforestated claim petition was instituted by the petitioner claiming compensation due to injuries suffered during the accident which occurred on 7.9.2002 resulting in fracture of both the legs of the petitioner besides numerous injuries all over his body. After the claim petition had been instituted, 14.2.2003 was fixed for evidence by the Claims Tribunal. According to the petitioner, since certified copies of papers had not been supplied, counsel for the petitioner sought adjournment of the case on the date fixed for evidence by moving application, which bears paper No. 24D (Annexure-1 to the petition) and a copy of which was duly served to the learned counsel for the opposite parties. However, by means of order dated 14.2.2003, the aforestated claim petition was dismissed for default of parties and also on ground that there was none to press the application moved on behalf of the petitioner for adjournment and also observing that no sufficient ground is made out. As stated supra, the petitioner preferred two separate applications one for condonation of delay and the other for recall of order and restoration of the claim petition to its original number. The application or recall of the order was filed with accompanying affidavit in which grounds were spelt out for non-appearance and delay in filing restoration application was also accounted for. The aforesaid applications were resisted by the learned counsel for the opposite parties by means of objection. It is noteworthy that no counter-affidavit was filed and the affidavit unfolding ground for non-appearance and for delay in filing restoration application remained uncontroverted. It is in the above backdrop that applications aforestated were rejected by means of order dated 4.2.2004.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned standing counsel. I have also been taken through the materials on record.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Tribunal rejected the condonation application on hypertechnical consideration that the application did not specify date of visit of the petitioner for treatment at Apollo Hospital, New Delhi. He further submitted that as a matter of fact, the affidavit accompanying restoration application spelt out all requisite details which was not controverted by any counter-affidavit and still the Tribunal proceeded to reject the application on the fallacy that it lacked sufficient ground. He further submitted that affidavit accompanying the application remained uncontroverted inasmuch as opposite parties preferred not to file any counter-affidavit and remained content with filing objection alone.
5. From a perusal of the record, it crystallizes that the petitioner had suffered multiple injuries including fracture of both his legs in the accident as a result of collision with the scooter on 7.9.2001. The petitioner cited reasons in the affidavit for his absence on 14.2.2003 fixed by the Tribunal for evidence and it is explained by the learned counsel for the petitioner in his address to the Court that with the passage of time, aggravation of injuries of his left leg necessitated examination and treatment at Apollo Hospital, New Delhi and it was on account of his prolonged absence due to treatment at Apollo Hospital that he could not file restoration application within the prescribed time. From the record, it is indicated that the counsel for the petitioner had moved application for adjournment, which came to be rejected on ground of default of the counsel who could not appear to press that application and also for the reason that opposite parties were conspicuous by absence. It is quite obvious from the record that the petitioner had suffered injuries in the accident and it is nobody's case that he had since recouped from injuries and was leading a normal life and in the circumstances, instead of taking a lenient and liberal view, the Tribunal proceeded to pass the impugned orders on hypertechnical consideration. If a person suffering from injuries and undergoing treatment absents himself on a particular date or he prefers application for restoration of the case which overshoots the prescribed time, ends of justice calls for charitable view. Justice means doing substantial justice between the parties at all costs and it would amount to procrustean equality of medieval period if an injured and a normal person is meted out equal treatment. In the instant case, both from the affidavit and from record, it is too obvious that the petitioner absented himself on the particular date for reason of treatment at Apollo Hospital. Merely on the ground that he could not specify date or could not produce requisite papers vouchsafing his treatment at Apollo Hospital, it would not forfeit his right to the reliefs claimed in the claim petition. The affidavit filed by the petitioner in aid of his application for restoration/ recall remained uncontroverted. The law is unambiguous on the aspect that facts in the uncontroverted affidavit commend for acceptance as showing sufficient cause. Two decisions on the point may usefully be cited namely, Juggi Lal Kamla Pat v. Ram Ram Janki Gupta and Anr., AIR 1962 All 407 and Controller of Court of Ward, Kolhapur and Anr., AIR 1973 SC 627, which clearly enunciate the law that in case no counter-affidavit is filed, in that event, averments in the affidavit would normally be accepted. The objection filed by the opposite parties resisting the applications of the petitioner cannot be treated as substitute for the counter-affidavit and in the circumstances, it is held that the facts stated in the affidavit remained uncontroverted and in consequence, it is held that the petitioner had shown sufficient cause and the Tribunal acted illegally in rejecting the application for restoration as also the application for condonation of delay.
6. Another aspect, which begs consideration stems from the contention advanced across the bar that the order dated 14.2.2003 does indicate that the claim petition was dismissed also on the ground that both the parties were conspicuous by their absence on the date. In connection with this proposition, I am of the view that it is not essential at all to give notice to the respondents before acting on application seeking restoration of the claim petition to its original number. It brooks no dispute that an order of restoration without notice to the defendant would have suffered from error of law, only if the defendant had been present at the time of dismissal. In the perspective of Order IX, Rule 9, C.P.C. which has been made applicable to the Motor Accident Claim Cases, it is deducible that in case sufficient cause is shown the application for recall/restoration and also the application for condonation of delay in filing restoration application could be taken up on merit and the case could be restored in the absence of respondents. In the present case, sufficient cause has been shown but having regard to the fact-situation that defendant was absent on the date the orders were passed, in my considered view no notice is required to be given and the case could be restored to its original number without any notice to the Opposite Party.
7. It is discretion of the Court to adjudge sufficiency of cause in the facts and circumstances of a particular case and such discretion has to be exercised with vigilance and circumspection according to justice, common sense and sound judgment. No pre-fabricated formula can be laid down or applied in such situation. As a matter of fact, the Court should take liberal view so as to advance substantial justice when no negligence nor inaction nor want of bona fides is imputable. If a person squirming with injuries absents himself on a particular date or files application beyond the prescribed time, the Court is under a duty to act with circumspection and vigilance and should discard rigidity and too technical view in the interest of justice. Instead of taking liberal view, the Tribunal indulged in pettifogging without regard being had that it was a case of person who was injured in accident and had instituted petition for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act and was till reeling under agony of injuries sustained in the accident. It is settled principle of law that effort should be made not to shut out the doors of justice to the injured person but to allow the person to participate in the legal proceedings for redressal of his grievances in the Court of law.
8. In the above conspectus, the Tribunal acted erroneously in rejecting the application filed for restoration of the claim petition and also the application for condonation of delay taking too rigid and too technical a view and therefore, the orders are liable to be quashed. This Court in the above conspectus feels that the approach of the Court dealing with the matter of the ilk where adjudication of compensation case was required, should be humanistic, liberal, non-technical and equitable. The claim by an injured for compensation in a claim petition cannot be equated to proceeding at par with proceeding in easement, mortgage or property dispute. The focus of the Constitution is on social justice and courts being watchdogs of the Constitution, is called upon to play an activist's role in the matter of the nature.
9. In the end, the learned counsel for the petitioner drew attention of the Court to the impugned order dated 14.2.2003 and submitted that adjournment application having been rejected on the ground that there was none to press that application is a sort of penalties visited upon the petitioner for no fault of the petitioner. In para 3 of the affidavit, it is clearly stated that .the counsel for the petitioner had moved adjournment application. In Rafiq v. Munshilal, AIR 1981 SC 1400, the Apex Court held that as per the present adversary legal system, if a client selects his advocate, briefs him and pays him his fee, he can remain supremely confident that his lawyer will look after his interest and such an innocent party should not be punished for the negligence of his lawyer. By this reckoning, the view of the court below in dismissing the claim petition and subsequently in rejecting the applications for recall/restoration and for condonation of delay cannot be countenanced in law and the orders are liable to be quashed.
10. As a result of foregoing discussion, the petition succeeds and is allowed. In consequence, the impugned orders dated 14.2.2003 and 4.2.2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge (Court No. 17) are quashed. As a necessary corollary, the Motor Accident Claim Case No. 37 of 2002 shall stand restored to its original number. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that the District Judge, Meerut shall hear and decide the M.A.C. No. 37 of 2002 will recall the case to his Court and decide the said case expeditiously preferably within four months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order.