Litigants should not suffer for counsel’s negligence in beneficial legislation and motor accident claim cases.

The appellants (original claimants) filed a claim petition (MACC No. 141 of 2015) seeking compensation for the accidental death of Arvind Vaidya.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Indore, dismissed the claim on July 10, 2018, due to the non-appearance of counsel and non-filing of process fees.

The appellants filed a restoration application under Order 9 Rules 4 and 9 of the CPC (MJC No. 896 of 2018), citing the illness and subsequent death of their counsel’s father as the reason for default.

The Tribunal dismissed this restoration application on January 13, 2026, leading to the present miscellaneous appeal.

Whether the Tribunal erred in dismissing the restoration application despite the personal exigencies faced by the counsel for the claimants.

Whether the negligence of a counsel should deprive a claimant of an adjudication on merits in a beneficial legislation matter.

The court applied Section 43 Rule 1(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), regarding appeals from orders.

It further relied on the procedural provisions of Order 9 Rules 4 and 9 read with Section 151 of the CPC regarding the restoration of suits dismissed for default.

The court emphasized the judicial principle that a party should not suffer for the negligence of their advocate.

The principle that procedure serves as the "handmade of justice" rather than an obstacle to relief, particularly in "beneficial legislation" like motor accident claims.

The High Court observed that while the Tribunal was not convinced by the evidence regarding the counsel’s father's ailment, the facts indicated the counsel was occupied with medical treatment and bereavement.

The Court reasoned that even if the counsel were considered "little negligent," it is a settled principle that litigants should not be penalized for their lawyer's lapses.

Furthermore, the Court noted that motor accident law is beneficial legislation intended to assist survivors of deceased victims.

Dismissing such claims on technical procedural grounds rather than hearing them on merits would result in a failure of justice for the legal heirs.

Consequently, the Court found the Tribunal's approach in MJC No. 896 of 2018 to be improper and overly technical.

The Court ordered the restoration of MACC No. 141 of 2015 to its original number, directing the claimants to file the requisite process fees as per the Tribunal's directions.

The Appellants were directed to appear before the Claims Tribunal within fifteen days with a copy of this order for the adjudication of the claim on its merits.