RAM WATI Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . By means of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks quashing of an order dated 16/11/2001, passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Delhi, thereby dismissing applications of the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 4 read with Section 151 CPC and application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking restoration of the petition which was dismissed in default.

(2.) . The facts leading to the present petition are that on 18/03/1994, the petitioner had filed a petition under the Motor Accident Claim Act for award of the compensation in regard to the accidental death of her only son of young age. The petition was dismissed in default on 18/03/1997 as it was not being pursued diligently and steps for effecting service upon the respondents were not taken despite repeated opportunities allowed for the purpose. An application dated 3/03/2000, accompanied by another application under Order 5 of the Limitation Act was moved on behalf of the petitioner praying for setting aside the order of dismissal and its restoration after condonation of delay in filing the application with the averments and allegations that the petitioner is an illiterate lady ordinarily resident of a remote village in District Bulandshahar, U.P. She deputed a certain Shri Ram Babu to file and pursue the petition through an advocate by the name of Shri P.K.Tyagi. The counsel after filing the petition kept the petitioner and Ram Babu in dark about the progress of the petition and assured them that the petition was being pursued diligently, though in fact he failed to take steps for effecting service upon the respondents despite 7-8 opportunities granted for the purpose. On 17/04/1997, certain Amar Pal who was witness in the criminal case met the Advocate Shri P.K.Tyagi and enquired from him about the progress of the petition and counsel informed him that the matter was listed for 18/04/1997. On 9/02/2000 Shri Ram Babu appeared in the court of the Metropolitan Magistrate where the trial of criminal case under Section 279/304-A IPC was in progress and he approached Mr.Tyagi, Advocate, to know about the progress of the petition. Mr. Tyagi, bluntly told him that as nobody was pursuing the matter, the petition stood dismissed in default. Shri Ram Babu informed the fact of the dismissal of the petition to the petitioner at her native village and, thereafter, she engaged a new counsel who inspected the record and filed the application. It is stated that the absence of the petitioner on 18/03/1997, was not deliberate and the petition was dismissed owing to the callous/ negligence on the part of the counsel to pursue the matter as undertaken by him. Both applications were supported by the affidavit of the petitioner.

(3.) . The learned trial court has dismissed the application and refused to restore the petition mainly on the ground that the petitioner was negligent in pursuing the matter inasmuch as she or her counsel failed to take steps by filing the process fee etc.for effecting the service on the respondents despite several opportunities allowed for the purpose. No cause much less sufficient cause was made either for condonation of delay in filing the application or for setting aside the order of dismissal of the petition. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner has filed the present petition.