Santosh Kumari vs Dildar Singh and others

Ram Chand Gupta, J.—Petitioner has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 08.10.2010, Annexure P1 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurdaspur (for short, the ''Tribunal'') vide which learned Tribunal had declined to restore the petition of present petitioner for compensation filed u/s 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the ''Act'') which was dismissed in default.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned Tribunal, Gurdaspur.

Brief facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that, an accident had taken place on 13.01.2002 between truck being driven by Jaswant Singh, deceased son of present petitioner and bus being driven by respondent no.1, which was owned by respondent no.2 and insured with respondent no.3. Jaswant Singh son of present petitioner sustained injuries on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of driver of the bus thereafter, he succumbed to the injuries. The present claim petition was filed by the present petitioner being mother of the deceased alongwith her husband and another son. The petition was ordered to be dismissed in default on 20.09.2004 by the Tribunal. Application was moved by the present petitioner and other claimants for setting aside the said order and however, the request was declined by learned Tribunal vide impugned order on the ground that sufficient reasons were not shown and the application was filed after the expiry of period of limitation.

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner-claimant that provisions of CPC are not strictly applicable to the proceedings under the Act before learned Tribunal. He has further contended that moreover, no limitation is prescribed for filing an application for setting aside a petition which was dismissed in default. He has also placed reliance upon Pritam Chand Vs. Shamsher Singh and Others,

On the other hand, it has been argued by learned counsel for the respondents that this was second default on the part of petitioner and that application was also filed after about eight months of passing of the order vide which petition was dismissed in default.

There is force in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that provisions of CPC are not strictly applicable to the petition filed under the Act for compensation. No period of limitation is also prescribed for restoring the petition which was dismissed in default. Hence, merely on the ground that there was negligence on the part of counsel for the petitioner, petitioner cannot be non-suited.

Hence, in my view, illegality has been committed by learned Tribunal, Gurdaspur in declining the request of petitioner for setting aside order dated 20.09.2004 and for restoring the present claim petition.

Hence, in view of aforementioned facts, the present revision petition is accepted and impugned impugned order dated 08.10.2010 is, hereby, set aside.

As a consequence thereof, the application filed by present petitioner for restoration of main petition which was dismissed in default, is allowed.

All the parties through their counsel are directed to appear before learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurdaspur on 21.12.2011 for further proceedings as per law.

As the petition is pending since 2003, learned Tribunal is directed to expedite the decision by giving short adjournments.