8-WP-8416-2017.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 67 WRIT PETITION NO. 8416 OF 2017 Dnyaneshwar Bhausaheb Gagare VERSUS Mr. Ramjan Ismail Shaikh and Anr. ….. Mr. Pravin S. Dighe, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. M. M. Ambhore, Advocate for Respondent No.2 ….. CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 09.03.2026 PER COURT : 1. Heard the learned counsel Mr. Dighe for the petitioner and the learned counsel Mr. Ambhure for respondent No.2. 2. The petitioner challenges the order dated 09.07.2014 passed by the learned Member, MACT, Kopargaon in Misc. Application No.25/2013, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for condonation of delay of 207 days in restoring the original MACP No.11/2008 came to be rejected. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had filed MACP No.11/2008 before the Tribunal seeking compensation. It is the case of the petitioner that in the month of November 2008, he was appointed as a Legal Officer in a Sugar Factory, and therefore he could not attend the proceedings for some period. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed MACP No.11/2008 for non-prosecution. After coming to know about the dismissal of the claim petition, the petitioner applied for a certified copy of the order, 1 2026:BHC-AUG:10161 8-WP-8416-2017.odt which was received on 07.03.2013. Thereafter, the petitioner engaged another advocate and filed an application for setting aside the order dated 27.06.2012 by which the claim petition was dismissed. Along with the said application, the petitioner also filed an application for condonation of delay in filing the restoration application. The said application was opposed by respondent No.2 – Insurance Company by filing a reply. However, the learned Tribunal dismissed the application for condonation of delay. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned order. 5. After going through the application and the order passed by the Tribunal, I find that the learned Tribunal has adopted a hyper-technical approach. The petitioner had filed the claim petition seeking compensation arising out of a motor vehicular accident, and therefore the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the matter from that perspective. Merely because the petitioner could not remain present for some time and the claim petition came to be dismissed for non- prosecution, the Tribunal ought to have taken a liberal view while considering the application for restoration. Therefore, I am inclined to allow the present writ petition by setting aside the order passed below Exhibit–1. 6. In view thereof, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 09.07.2014 passed by the learned Member, MACT, Kopargaon in Misc. Application No.25/2013 is quashed and set aside. The application below Exhibit–1 stands allowed. 2 8-WP-8416-2017.odt 7. It is made clear that in case, the Tribunal allows the claim petition, the petitioner shall not be entitled to interest for the period from the date of dismissal of the claim petition i.e. 27.06.2012 till today i.e. 09.03.2026. [SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.] Sameer/March-2026 3