Keshote, J.
1. This revision petition under Section 115 CPC is directed against the order dated 20th October 1994 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Behror in Misc. Case No. 38/94.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that the claimant- petitioner and others filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Alwar, claiming therein the compensation of Rs. 13,15,000/-. This claim petition was filed on 29th May, 1986. Thereafter, it was transferred to the Court of Additional District Judge No. 2 Alwar and later on, on 28th November, 1992, the same was sent to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Behror.
3. On 20th of August, 1993 the claim petition was dismissed for non-filing of P.F. and notices in pursuance of the order dated 25.2.93. The petitioner submitted an application for restoration thereof, which was also came to be rejected under the impuged order. This, this revision petition.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
5. It is unfortunate that in the matter where the victim of the accident or the dependents of a victim who died in the motor accident, such a perverse approach had been adopted while passing orders by a judicial officer in the rank of Addl. District Judge. In the application for restoration of the claim application ground given out is that the counsel of the claimants Shri Ram ji Lal Gupta fell ill on 20th August, 1993 and thus, he was not in a position to attend the court. Further he had not inform to the claimants of his illness, otherwise the petitioner would have made arrangement to attend the court. This is hardly a ground for rejection of this application for restoration of claim petition that all the claimants have not filed the same. Other ground given for rejection of this application that all the claimants in the petition have not filed their affidavit in support thereof hardly justified. Ofcourse, the advocate has not filed his affidavit, but that is not a reasonable ground to reject the application, more so when the applicant filed his affidavit in support of his application. In case, the Advocate has not filed his Vakalat Nama though engaged by the claimants, how these poor claimants could have been blamed for his absence, omission or carelessness. The claimants have engaged an Advocate and they are wholly justified to depend on him and have full confidence and faith that he will contest their case to the best of his ability. There is no error or omission, or negligence of claimants in contesting their case. In case, the P.F. and notices for the respondents have not filed on 25.2.1993, by the Advocate how it can be taken as a mistake or omission on the part of the poor claimants/litigants. The claimants cannot be blamed or penalised for this omission or error, or negligence or carelessness of an advocate. It is not the case of the Advocate or other side that the claimants have not given to him their Vakalatnama, fee and amount for day to day litigation expenses.
6. In the facts of this case I am satisfied that the claimants are not negligence or carelessness in prosecuting their case. Their presence on the day on which the claim petition has been dismissed for default was not required. The approach of learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is wholly perverse in holding that for absence of petitioner, other claimants and their Advocate no sufficient cause is furnished. It is not the law that the litigant has to furnish sufficient cause for the absence of their Advocate. In a case where litigant furnish sufficient cause for their absence it is sufficient. In case the order of the MACT is allowed to stand, it will occasion a failure of justice and it will certainly cause irreperable loss to the claimant petitioner.
7. Accordingly, this revision petition succeeds and the order dated 20.10.1994 passed by the judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, in Misc. case No. 38/94 is quashed and set-aside and the claim application filed by the claimant-petitioner is restored to it's original number with no order as to cost.
8. Before parting with the judgment, I consider it to be appropriate for guidance of the courts below that the Motor Vehicle Act is a benevolent piece of legislation. It is amended from time to time and the Parliament has lifted the rigor/rigidity of limitation within which claim petition should have to be filed. Similarly the Parliament has also lifted rigour/rigidity of jurisdiction of a Tribunal where a claim petition should have to be filed. Now a claim can to be filed by the claimant at three or more places depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. In such matters, the Presiding Officer of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal should not adopt the mechanical and technical approach. The claimant should not be non suited on the ground as what it has been done in the present case. This way, as what has been done, in the present case is permitted, the very purpose of enacting this benevolent piece of legislation by the Parliament will be frustrated. In such matters, it is expected from the Presiding Officer, M.A.C.T. to adopt and apply the justice oriented approach.