VIJAY MAHESHWARI Vs. PARVEZ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has approached the court for the relief claimed in the instant petition founded on the grievances that Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge (court No. 17), Meerut by means of its order dated 4.2.2004, rejected the condonation application and also the restoration application filed against dismissal of Motor Accident Claim Case No. 37 of 2002 which came to be dismissed for default of the petitioner as also the opposite parties.

(2.) A brief resume of necessary facts is that the afore stated claim petition was instituted by the petitioner claiming compensation due to injuries suffered during the accident which occurred on 7.9.2002 resulting in fracture of both legs of the petitioner besides numerous injuries all over his body. After the claim petition had been instituted, 14.2.2003 was fixed for evidence by the Claims Tribunal. According to the petitioner, since certified copies of papers had not been supplied, counsel for the petitioner sought adjournment of the case on the date fixed for evidence by moving application, which bears paper No. 24D (Annexure 1 to the petition) and a copy of which was duly served to learned counsel for the opposite parties. However, by means of order dated 14.2.2003, the afore stated claim petition was dismissed for default of parties and also, on ground that there was none to press the application moved on behalf of petitioner for adjournment and also observing that no sufficient ground is made out. As stated supra, the petitioner preferred two separate applications one for condonation of delay and the other for recall of order and restoration of the claim petition to its original number. The application for recall of the order was filed with accompanying affidavit in which grounds were spelt out for non-appearance and delay in filing restoration application was also accounted for. The aforesaid applications were resisted by the learned counsel for opposite parties by means of objection. It is noteworthy that no counter- affidavit was filed and the affidavit unfolding grounds for non-appearance and for delay in filing restoration application remained uncontroverted. It is in the above backdrop that the applications afore stated were rejected by means of order dated 4.2.2004.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned Standing Counsel, I have also been taken through the materials on record.