MEHRUNNISA Vs. AYYOB AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved with the dismissal of a restoration application made at Ext. P6. The petitioner allegedly suffered an accident and claimed compensation for the injuries suffered by O.P.(MV) No. 342/2006. The same stood posted for evidence on 04.12.2007. For non appearance of the petitioner, the claim stood dismissed as per Ext. P2. The petitioner applied for restoration of the claim petition along with delay condonation petition by Exts. P3 and P4. There was a delay of 564 days the learned counsel for the petitioner would place before me decisions reported in Saramma Scaria v. Mathai ( : 2002 KHC 453), Mahendra Rathore v. Omkar Singh and others ( : 2002 KHC 1903) and Jacob Thomas v. Pandian ( : 2005 KHC 1509), to seek for restoration of the applications.

(2.) SARAMMA Scaria (supra) was a case in which the Division Bench of this Court found that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal does not have power to dismiss an application on default. However, a Full Bench of this Court in Jacob Thomas (supra) disagreed with the said proposition and found that looking at the intendment of the statute it is only proper that on non appearance, a claim petition be dismissed only for default since the injured would have an opportunity to approach the Tribunal itself to set aside such orders by filing applications under Order X Rule 9. If decided on merit suo motu, the Full Bench held that the only remedy would be for the claimant to file an appeal. Considering the heavy expenses and inconvenience caused to the injured, the Full Bench held that as far as possible, on non -appearance, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal should dismiss the claims for default.

(3.) MAHENDRA Rathore (supra) was a case in which a claim petition filed before the MACT was dismissed on 27.01.1998. A restoration application was filed on 15.04.1998. The principles laid down therein applicable to restoration would not be applicable herein where the restoration was sought with a delay of 564 days.