(Prayer: Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased toaggrieved by the Order Dt 04.07.2022 in I.A.No.579/2017 in MVOP No.103/2011 on the file of XIII Additional District Judge Gajuwaka the above named petitioner begs

IA NO: 1 OF 2022

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to condone the delay of 5 days in preferring the Revision on the file of this Hon'ble court, in the interest of justice and pass)

1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 04.07.2022 passed by the learned XIII Additional District Judge, Gajuvaka in I.A.No.579 of 2017 and M.V.O.P.No.103 of 2011.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners filed an interlocutory application seeking to condone the delay of 1191 days in filing a petition seeking to restore the M.V.O.P to file. The M.V.O.P filed by the petitioners was dismissed on 07.03.2014 when the matter was posted for trial, on account of non-appearance of the petitioners. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners filed I.A.No.579 of 2017 seeking condonation of delay of 1191 days. The learned Judge had dismissed the said I.A. primarily on the ground that no sufficient reasons were assigned by the petitioners for condoning the delay of 1191 days in filing the restoration petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners’ only son, who was studying the 3rd standard, met with a fatal accident and died on the spot. He further submits that the 1st petitioner is physically handicapped and that the petitioners’ could not approach the Court by filing an appropriate application, as they were not advised by the learned counsel engaged by them. Their attempt to have M.V.O.P. restored to file by filing an interlocutory application was also rejected by the learned Judge the ground that no sufficient reasons were mentioned for the inordinate delay.

4. The learned counsel representing the respondent No.1 submits that, when the petitioners are seeking to condone the delay, there should have been an explanation for cause of the said delay. It is further contended that no document was filed along with the I.A., to substantiate the plea that the delay was on account of the ill health of the 1st petitioner. On these grounds, it is submitted that the learned Judge has passed a well-reasoned order and, therefore, prays for dismissal of the present Civil Revision Petition.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. Perused the material on record.

6. The only ground on which this Court is inclined to consider modifying the order passed by the XIII Additional District Judge, Gajuvaka, is that the petitioners have lost their only son in an accident and have claimed for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. The Motor Vehicle Act is a beneficial legislation, and technicalities ought not to stand in the way of adjudicating their claim on merits. The object of the Act places the claimant in the same position that he was before the accident and to compensate him for his loss. Thus, it should be interpreted liberally so as to achieve the maximum benefit. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Syed Mahaboob Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited((2011) 11 SCC 625) has also held that the Act should be interpreted liberally.

7. The 1st petitioner is physically challenged and the loss of his son and the psychological implications of it, have definitely reflected in the petitioner not taking up the appropriate legal steps within the statutory limitation period for seeking to set aside the order of dismissal. This factor ought to have been considered by the learned Judge while considering the I.A.No.579 of 2017. As seen from the M.V.O.P, the petitioner has claimed compensation of Rs.3,50,000/-, which could have been adjudicated on merits rather than giving weightage to the respondents contention that the petitioner has not assigned any detailed reasons for the delay caused.

8. On the above considerations, this Court is inclined to allow the Civil Revision Petition and set aside the order passed in IA No.579 of 2017 in M.V.O.P.No.103 of 2011 and the order passed by the learned XIII Additional District Judge, Gajuvaka is hereby set aside. The M.V.O.P.No.103 of 2011 is restored to file. Considering that the said M.V.O. P. was filed in the year 2011, the learned trial Judge shall endeavor to dispose of M.V.O.P.No.103 of 2011 on merits, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order.

9. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed off. No costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.