POULOSE Vs. ABUBACKER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner challenges Ext.P1 order dated 09.07.2003 of the Tribunal, in this petition under Article 227. By Ext.P1 the Tribunal, dismissed the claim filed by the petitioner since, the petitioner and the counsel were absent and also for the reason that no batta had been paid for issuing notice to R1. It is to be noticed that this petition under Article 227 is filed after about 11 years from the date of dismissal of the claim petition. It is also to be noticed that the petitioner has not approached the Tribunal with an application under Order 9 Rule 4 for setting aside the dismissal for default.

(2.) IT is vehemently argued that the petitioner has suffered injury in an accident and the fact that the accident occurred and the petitioner suffered injury being undisputed, the petitioner's claim for compensation should be considered.

(3.) IN fact, on going through the records, it is seen that when notice was ordered on 23.12.2002, it was ordered to the petitioner also. Notice is seen issued to the petitioner pointing out that the original petition when taken up for hearing on 23.12.2002, neither the petitioner nor the counsel was present and also intimating the next date of posting as on 25.02.2003.