HANAMATHAPPA Vs. IRAYYA HIREMATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. The respondents No. 1, 2 and 4 having been served with notice of the petition, have not chosen to appear and remain unrepresented. Notice to respondent No.3 is dispensed with at the request of the petitioner.

(3.) The material on record indicates that the petitioner herein filed M.V.C. No. 165/2014 seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident stated to have been occurred on 14/3/2014. The said claim petition having been opposed by respondents No.2 and 4, the matter was set down for evidence on 17/10/2019, on which day, the petitioner could not adduce evidence as a result of which the MACT dismissed the claim petition for non-prosecution/ default. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner filed Miscellaneous Petition No. 5/2020 seeking restoration of the claim petition along with an application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 100 days in filing the Miscellaneous Petition. The said Miscellaneous Petition and the application was not contested by the respondents and the petitioner got himself examined as PW1 and Ex.P.1 was marked on his behalf.