LALOO BHARTI Vs. ANWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The memorandum of this appeal, filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, shows that it is against the judgment dated 25.10.1991 and decree dated 15.11.1991 of the VII Additional District Judge, Allahabad, acting as Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, passed in Misc. Claim Petition No. 59 of 1990 and that two-fold reliefs have been claimed:

(2.) The appellant filed claim petition under Sections 110-A and 92-A of Motor Vehicles Act on 23.10.1987 before the Tribunal which was registered as Claim Petition No. 222 of 1987. After notice the opposite party appeared and made repeated prayers for filing W.S. By order dated 23.5.1989, as no W.S. was filed, the Tribunal passed an order to proceed ex pane and fixed 8.8.1989 for ex pane hearing. After several dates on 16.1.1990, as on repeated calls, no one responded on behalf of the claimant, the claim petition was dismissed. On 14.2.1990 the claimant filed an application for restoration of the claim petition under Order IX, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the reasons stated in his affidavit accompanying the application. This application was registered as Misc. Case No. 17 of 1990. This misc. case was adjourned on several dates on which the petitioner absented and ultimately was dismissed for default by order dated 1.12.1990. This order has neither been assailed nor has the appellant attached its copy along with this appeal. Even the learned Counsel for the appellant has not addressed us to show as to what wrong was committed in dismissing his case for default. On 10.12.1990 the appellant filed an application for restoration of the Misc. Case No. 17 of 1990. This was registered as Misc. Case No. 60 of 1990. It was also adjourned from time to time as the appellant was absent. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that Misc. Case No. 60 of 1990 filed for reviving Misc. Case No. 17 of 1990 which was heard on 25.10.1991 and rejected by the impugned order dated 25.10.1991 on the ground that the claim of the appellant that he had sustained sprain and for that reason could not appear has not been supported by any medical certificate and, thus no good cause has been proved.

(3.) The memo of the appeal, as already stated, shows that it has been filed for remitting back Misc. Claim Petition No. 59 of 1990, whereas no such case was even filed by the appellant.