SUKHDEV SAI Vs. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved with the order dated 31.3.2001 passed in M.A.C.CNo.62/1999 by the II Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh, the appellant/claimant has preferred this appeal u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

(2.) SHORT questions raised for consideration are-

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the claimant was heard on the claim and it was directed to be registered on the same day i.e., 15.4.1998 and notices were directed to be issued to the opposite side for filing their written statements and the matter was fixed for framing of issues on 04.7.1998. On 04.7.1998, counsel for the respondents caused his appearance and sought time to file written statement. The time was allowed and further time for filing written statement was allowed on various subsequent dates and the written statement was filed on 02.9.1999. Thereafter, the matter was listed for framing of issues on 08.10.1999 and the issues were framed on the said date and it was fixed for evidence on 8.1.2000. On 8.1.2000, the evidence could not be taken, thereafter, the matter was adjourned to various subsequent dates and ultimately an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed which was allowed and notices were directed to be issued to the newly added respondent and again the matter was fixed for written statement of the said respondent on 31.3.2001. On 31.3.2001, all of a sudden, learned Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim petition of the claimant saying that since the provisions of Rule 220 (1 )(3) of the aforesaid Rules of 1994 were not complied, therefore, the claim petition is dismissed. It is against this order; the appellant/claimant has filed this appeal.