[2025:RJ-JP:19672] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2192/2004 1. Darbar Singh son of Shri Amar Singh. 2. Rajabeti wife of Shri Darbar Singh. Both are resident of Village Chila Chondh, Police Station Kanchanpur, Tehsil Badi, District Dholpur. ----Appellants/Claimants Versus 1. The New India Insurance Company behind old Power House, Alwar (Raj.). 2. Rashid Ahmad Son of Shri Fakir Mohammad, Resident of Saray Khwaja, Agra (U.P.). ----Respondents/Non-Claimants For Appellant(s) : Mr. Anil Jain, Adv. with Mr. Dushyant Jain, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjay Singhal, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 09/05/2025 1. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the service upon respondent No.2 may be dispensed with, as he was proceeded ex-parte before the Court below. 2. With the consent of the parties, the matter was heard finally. 3. The present Civil Misc. Appeal has been filed by the appellants-claimants against the order dated 21.08.2004 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for brevity 'MACT'), Dholpur in MAC Misc. Case No.45/2004, whereby restoration application filed under Order 9 Rule 9 of CPC was dismissed. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the claimants have filed the claim petition on account of the death of their son. The said [2025:RJ-JP:19672] (2 of 3) [CMA-2192/2004] claim petition was listed for recording evidence of the claimants on 01.11.2001, but due to certain unavoidable reasons, the appellants-claimants could not remain present when the case was called for hearing, therefore, the claim petition of the appellants-claimants was dismissed in default. 5. It is not disputed that claimants have filed the restoration application under Order 9 Rule 9 of CPC on 27.11.2001, wherein they have pleaded that due to unavoidable circumstances i.e. break down of the bus, they could not appear when the case was called for hearing. Thus non appearance was bona fide, accordingly prayed for recalling of the order dated 01.11.2001 and restoration of claim. 6. The respondent No.1-Insurance Company filed the reply to the restoration application and prayed for dismissal of the same. 7. That the learned MACT after hearing the arguments of the respective parties vide impugned orders dismissed the restoration application filed by the appellants. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. The contention of counsel for the appellants-claimants is that the present matter relates to compensation on account of death of their son and restoration application was filed within time and appellants were prevented with sufficient cause when the case was called for hearing. He further submits that absence of the appellants was bona fide, and reason for the same was beyond the control of the appellants, therefore, the impugned order may be set-aside and the matter may be remanded back to the Court below concerned. [2025:RJ-JP:19672] (3 of 3) [CMA-2192/2004] 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order and submitted that impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, therefore, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 11. A bare perusal of the impugned order reveals that restoration application was filed within time and in the restoration application it was pleaded that due to break down of the bus, the appellants could not reach the Court when the case was called for hearing. The aforesaid fact is duly supported by an affidavit of the appellants, thus in my considered opinion, the appellants have shown sufficient cause for their absence, therefore, the impugned order is set-aside. The claim petition is restored to its original number and the learned MACT is directed to decide the Claim Petition No.45/2004 on merits in accordance with law. The matter is remanded back for decision of the claim petition on merits. 12. In order to avoid further delay in the matter, parties are directed to appear before the learned MACT on 15.07.2025. 13. The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly, allowed. (MANEESH SHARMA),J AMIT/3