1 2026:CGHC:20030 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 508 of 2026 1 - Smt. Ram Bai Wd/o Late Thakurdayal Kurre, Aged About 59 Years R/o Village Satpata, Police Station Bishrampur, Tahsil And District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ku. Neera Kurre D/o Late Thakurdayal Kurrey Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Satpata, Police Station Bishrampur, Tahsil And District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Ramsabad Singh S/o Nandkishore Singh, Aged About 49 Years R/o Village Shivnandanpur, Police Station Bishrampur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. .. ( Driver Of Offending Vehicle Truck Bearing Registration No. C.G. – 15-Cx-5691) 2 - Rakesh Rai S/o Akhileshwar Ram Rai, Aged About 25 Years R/o Minus Colony Bishrampur, Ward No. 06, Police Station Bishrampur, District - Surajpur, Chhattisgarh --- ( Owner Of Offending Vehicle Truck Bearing Registration No. C.G. 15-Cx-5691) 3 - Branch Manager H.D.F.C, Branch Surajpur, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh --- (Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Truck Bearing Registration No. C.G.-15-Cx-5691) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aditya Mishra, Advocate SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2026.05.04 18:17:53 +0530 2 S.B. Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board 29/04/2026 1 Heard. 2 The present writ petitioner under article 227 of the Constitution of India, filed by the petitioner against the order dated 07.10.2024 whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 2 of CPC has been rejected. 3 Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners had earlier prosecuting a claim case before the learned 2nd Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surajpur (hereinafter referred as “Claims Tribunal”) bearing Claim Case No. 54/2018 for compensation on account of death of Dinesh Kurre who is the son of the petitioner No. 1 and brother of the petitioner No. 2. In the said claim case, award was passed on 30.07.2018 and an amount of Rs.5,16,000/- was awarded in favour of the petitioners. Being dissatisfied by the quantum of the compensation, the petitioners had filed an appeal bearing MAC No. 1685/2018 before this Court. The said appeal was disposed of vide order dated 07.03.2024 and remitted the matter back to the learned Claims Tribunal permitting the Respondent No. 3/ Insurance Company to file their written statement and the appellants to amend their pleadings and to led their evidences. Thereafter, the learned Claims Tribunal has dismissed the claim case for non-compliance of the orders with respect to issuance of notices to the non-applicants and non payment of process fee for them vide order dated 23.09.2024. When 3 the petitioners came to know about dismissal of their claim case, they filed their application for restoration of the same under Order 9 Rule 2 of CPC, however, the said application has also been dismissed. Which is under challenge in the present writ petition. 4 He would further submit that the present is a claim case which may not be dismissed on technical ground as the petitioners suffered loss of the son of petitioner No. 1 and brother of petitioner No. 2. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial law and the petitioners are entitled for compensations and since from the date of accident i.e. 31.01.2018 till date they have not received any amount of compensation and their claim application is dismissed on the technical ground. The petitioners being the less literate persons, there was lack of communication between them and their counsel before the learned Claims Tribunal, their claim case was dismissed, the petitioners want to prosecute their claim case vigilantly and therefore, the same may be restored in its original number by allowing their application under Order 9 Rule 2 of CPC. 5 I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material annexed with the petition. 6 The facts of the case are not in dispute that in the Claim Case No. 54/2018, an award was passed in favour of the petitioners vide award dated 30.07.2018. They have challenged the award by filing MAC No. 1685/2018 before this Court which was remitted back to the learned Claims Tribunal permitting to Respondent No. 3 to file their written statement and permitting the appellants to amend their pleadings and to 4 lead their evidence. Thereafter, the proceeding was restarted before the learned Claims Tribunal and the order for issuance of notice on payment of process fee by the claimants was repeatedly met by the learned Claims Tribunal, however, on 23.09.2024, when the claimants have repeatedly failed to obey the order passed by learned Claims Tribunal and not paid the process fee for the non-applicants, their claim case was dismissed for non compliance of the order on 07.10.2024. 7 Order 9 Rule 2 of CPC provided the dismissal of the suit where summons not served in consequence of plaintiffs failure to pay cost. It is necessary to notice here the provisions of Order 9 Rule 2 of CPC which is as under:- 2. Dismissal of suit where summons not served in consequence of plaintiff's failure to pay costs.—Where on the day so fixed it is found that summons has not been served upon the defendant in consequence of the failure of the plaintiff to pay the court-fee or postal charges, if any, chargeable for such service, or failure to present copies of the plaint as required by rule 9 of Order VII, the Court may make an order that the suit be dismissed: Provided that no such order shall be made, if notwithstanding such failure, the defendant attends in person [or by agent when he is allowed to appear by agent] on the day fixed for him to appear and answer. 8 The remedy is provided under Order 9 Rule 4 of CPC in case the suit of the plaintiff has been dismissed under Rule 2 of Order 9 which is as under:- 4. Plaintiff may bring fresh suit or Court may restore suit to file. —Where a suit is dismissed under rule 2 or rule 3, the plaintiff 5 may (subject to the law of limitation) bring a fresh suit; or he may apply for an order to set the dismissal aside, and if he satisfies the Court that there was sufficient cause for such failure as is referred to in rule 2, or for his non-appearance, as the case may be, the Court shall make an order setting aside the dismissal and shall appoint a day for proceeding with the suit. 9 The learned trial Court has dismissed the claim application of the petitioners on the ground that they have failed to pay process fee for service of summons to the non-applicants. Although, it has been observed that in so many occasions the plaintiff has failed to pay the process fee, however, keeping in view the beneficial law of the Motor Vehicles Act to grant compensation to the victim’s family who are the sufferer of death or injury in a motor accident, instead of dismissing the claim application another opportunity should have been granted to the claimants to pay the process fee. The claimants are pleaded that they are the resident of Village area remotedly connected with the claims tribunal at Surajpur. They are not having any regular communication with their counsel. Earlier an award was passed in their favour in which compensation of Rs. 5,16,000/- was awarded. In an appeal for enhancement of the compensation amount filed by them, they non- applicant No. 3/ Insurance Company was given opportunity to file written statement and the matter was remitted back to the learned Claims Tribunal to file written statement by the non-applicant No. 3 and to amend the pleadings by the claimants and to read evidence. When the coordinate bench of this Court, while remitting the matter back vide order dated 07.03.2024, directed the parties to appear before the claims 6 tribunal on 10.04.2024, there was no need to pay process fee by the claimants for the non-applicants and the dismissal of their claim application on that ground appears to be erroneous. 10 It is also necessary to observe that in the earlier proceeding an amount of Rs. 5,16,000/- was awarded as compensation to the claimants, however, when they filed their appeal for enhancement, the matter was remitted back to the learned Claims Tribunal and now their claim application was dismissed on technical ground of non payment of process fee by which they are depriving by the compensation amount. 11 It is settled law that in the beneficial laws like motor vehicles act, 1988, for grant of compensation, technicalities should not come on the way of advance substantial relief to the parties. When the coordinate bench of this Court had directed the parties to appear before the learned Claims Tribunal on 10.04.2024 and the parties are not choosen to appear there on the date given by the order dated 07.03.2024, the claim application of the claimants cannot be dismissed for want of non payment of process fee. 12 Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order passed by learned 2nd Addl. Claims Tribunal, Surajpur, is liable to be and hereby set aside. The Claim Case No. 54/2018 is restored to its original number for its decision on merits. The learned Claims Tribunal is directed to proceed with the case and to decide the same in accordance with law. 7 13 Since, the present petition has been allow without noticing to other parties, the learned Claims Tribunal may issue the SPC/ Notice to the opposite party. 14 Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE sagrika