Judgment:
ORDER
Usha Shukla, J.
1. Appellants are the widow and minor children of one Mahendra Chaturvedi, who died in an automobile accident on 10th May, 1989. They filed a petition for compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rewa which was registered as Claim Case No. 100/1991. On 18.9.1992 this case was dismissed for default in appearance of the claimants and their Counsel. The claimants applied for restoration of the case under Order 9 Rule 9, C.P.C., but the IVth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dismissed this petition also holding that the petitioners had failed to establish sufficient cause for their non-appearance. This order of the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has been challenged before this Court.
2. The learned Counsel for the appellants argued that the appellants were the young widow and minor children of the victim. The widow herself was only aged about 22 years at the time of the accident and the children were in their infancy. The date on which the claim petition was dismissed the default was the first date for evidence. The Counsel for the appellants had sworn an affidavit before the Tribunal explaining the circumstances under which the default occurred. The impugned order is totally unreasonable and unsustainable. The Counsel for the respondents however supported the order of the Tribunal and submitted that in case the claim petition was to be restored, heavy cost should be imposed.
3. Having heard the arguments on both sides, this Court is of the view that this appeal must be allowed. Law Courts are there to do justice between the parties, and not to discipline them or to punish them for default of their Counsel. Claims Tribunals were specially constituted with the beneficent object of speedy determination of compensation for the victims or their heirs. Hypertechnical view should not be taken in the matters of this nature. In this particular case, the claim petition was dismissed on the very first date fixed for evidence. The Lawyer of the claimants gave an affidavit that he was appearing in the case on the dates of hearing, and on the relevant date he had to go out of town on urgent personal work. He had instructed his juniors to appear in the case, which they failed to do by mistake. The copy of the affidavit is on record. We fail to understand as to how the Tribunal held the party to be negligent in the face of the affidavit of the Counsel. The widow was not expected to attend every hearing of the case, specially when she had entrusted the case to a duly instructed Counsel. No useful purpose1 would have been served if the widow had appeared on the date of hearing when her Counsel was not in a position to conduct the case. Her Lawyer had sworn the affidavit that he had instructed his juniors to appear in this case. Had any of his juniors appeared before the Tribunal, the case would have been adjourned on the ground that the Senior Counsel was not available. It was not a case in which the claimants had made repeated and deliberate defaults in appearance. We are of the view that the default in appearance was on account of the mistake or negligence of the Lawyer. For this the claimants could not be punished.
4. Looking to the circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that the Claims Tribunal erred in recording a finding that the claimants had failed to prove sufficient cause for failure to appear on 18.9.1992. We find that sufficient cause has been shown.
5. This appeal is, therefore, allowed. The impugned order dated 1.8.1994 is hereby set aside. Claim Case No. 100/1991 is restored to its original number. Parties are directed to appear before the Claims Tribunal on 19.3.2001.
No order as to costs.