Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK MACA No.699 of 2019 Vijaya Laxmi Pradhan & Ors. ..... Appellants Mr. P.K. Mishra, Advocate -versus- Rubina Khatun & Anr. ..... Respondents Mr. G.P. Dutta, Advocate (Respondent No. 2) CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 27.03.2025 Order No.05 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Hear Mr. P.K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant and Mr. G.P. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos. 2-Company. 3. The present appeal has been filed inter alia challenging order dtd.15.07.2019 so passed by the learned 5th MACT, Puri in MAC Case No. 174 of 2012. Vide the said order the claim application filed by the Appellant-Claimant was dismissed against Respondent No. 1 on context and ex parte against Respondent No. 2. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant contended that even though the Claimant-Appellant was represented by a Lawyer, but because of wrong advice, the Claimant-Appellant could neither adduced any evidence nor filed any documents in support of their claim. 4.1. It is contended that since for the latches on the part of the engaged counsel, no evidence was adduced nor any document was filed, the claim application was dismissed vide the impugned order. Page 2 of 3. It is also contended that on 11.07.2019 even though a prayer was made to allow further time, but the same was rejected and matter was heard on the same date. (Order dtd.11.07.2019 so produced in Court be kept in record.) 4.2. It is contended that since for the latches on the part of the engaged counsel, the claim application was dismissed with passing of a nil award, the same needs interference of this Court. 5. Mr. G.P. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 2-Company on the other hand contended that since after filing of the claim application the Appellants-Claimants did not take any step either to adduce evidence or to produce documents in support of their claim, no illegality or irregularity can be found with the impugned judgment. It is however not disputed that Respondent No. 2-Company was set ex parte by the Tribunal. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that the claim application was filed by the Appellant-Claimant seeking grant of compensation in respect of a road accident, which took place on 16.01.2012. This Court after going through the impugned order finds that the claim application was dismissed as because the Appellants-Claimants neither adduced any evidence nor filed any document in support of their claim. 6.1. Since it is the settled law that for the latches of the engaged counsel, a Party should not be made to suffer, this Court following the said principle, is inclined to quash the impugned order dtd.15.07.2019. While quashing the same, this Court remits the matter to the Tribunal to redecide the claim application afresh by giving due opportunity of hearing to all concerned. Page 3 of 3. 6.2. However, in order to avoid delay, the Appellant is directed to appear before the Tribunal on/before 17th April, 2025 along with a copy of this order. On her appearance the Tribunal shall fix up a date and prosecute the matter in accordance with law. 6.3. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 2- Company also contended that Respondent No. 2 will make its appearance also before the Tribunal on/before 17th April, 2025 and no notice need not be issued to Respondent No. 2 by the Tribunal. 6.4. Since the claim is of the year 2012, this Court directs the Tribunal to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible preferably by the end of this year, if there is no other legal impediment. It is also observed that since for the latches of the Claimant-Appellant, the matter was dismissed vide judgment dtd.15.07.2019, if any compensation will be allowed by the Tribunal in favour of the Claimants-Appellants, the Claimants-Appellants will not be entitled to get interest for the period from 15.07.2019 to till date. 7. The appeal accordingly stands disposed of. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Sneha