RASHID Vs. A T ASHRAF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the claimant in O.P. (M.V.) No.4027/1995 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vadakara, in which he claimed compensation for injuries sustained by him in a motor accident. According to the petitioner, since the Advocate appearing for him before the Tribunal stopped practice there was no representation for the petitioner on the date of posting of the O.P, the O.P. came to be dismissed for default. THE petitioner caused to file two applications namely I.A. Nos.1797/2003 and 1796/2003 for restoration of the claim and for condonation of delay in filing the petition for restoration. Both were considered together and by Ext.P1 order, both were allowed on condition that the petitioner pays Rs.3,000/- as costs to the 3rd respondent-Insurance company. THE petitioner did not pay the costs as directed within the time stipulated. THE petitioner filed I.A. No.3273/2006 for extension of time. By Ext.P5 order that application was dismissed as not pressed. It is under the above circumstances the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) I find that the petitioner has been at default at every stage of the proceedings. He did not properly follow up his claim petition before the Tribunal and the same happened to be dismissed for default. He filed application for restoration along with application to condone delay. That was allowed on terms. The petitioner did not comply with the terms. The petitioner filed an application seeking extension of time to pay the costs. When the said I.A. came up, the petition is seen dismissed as not pressed. Of course, the petitioner contends that it was not 'not pressed' as stated in the order. If that was so, the petitioner's remedy lies in seeking review of Ext.P5 order. As it stands now, I do not find anything wrong with the impugned orders. In the particular circumstances, the Tribunal could not have done anything better. Therefore I am not inclined to exercise my discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner who was consistently at fault in prosecuting his claim and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.