RATRI PARJUNI Vs. S K PRADHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this revision, application has challenged the order dated 1-12-2001 passed in M. J. C. No. 2 of 2001 by which the 1st Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Koraput at Jeypore, has dismissed the petition filed by the claimant with a prayer for setting aside the order passed by it dismissing M. J. C. No. 106 of 1997, and for restoration of the same to file for disposal in accordance with law.

(2.) The facts necessary for disposal of this revision application are stated thus : The present petitioner filed an application under S. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the 1st M. A. C. T., Koraput at Jeypore, claiming compensation for the death of her husband through an advocate named Shri Rajendra Panda. The aforesaid application which was registered as M.J.C. No. 106 of 1997 was posted to 24-8-2000 for hearing on the aforesaid date, the counsel appearing for the claimant filed a memo stating therein that the claimant did not intend to proceed with the case. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, when the claimant, a widow, whose husband died in a motor vehicular accident, was eagerly waiting to get compensation, all her hopes went to smoke, when she came to know that her application for compensation was dismissed on the basis of the memo filed by her counsel. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that there was no occasion on the part of the claimant to give such an instruction to her counsel which was nothing but suicidal. The petitioner is a lady and, as per her counsel, neither she had any knowledge regarding filing of the aforesaid memo. Mentioning therein that the claimant did not intend to proceed with the case nor had she given her consent or authorised her advocate to file such a memo. The sum and substance of the argument so advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this revision application is that the aforesaid memo stating that the claimant did not intend to proceed with the case was filed behind the back of the petitioner for the reasons, best known to her counsel conducting the case before the Tribunal. After the petitioner came to know about the dismissal of her claim petition, she filed an application under S. 151 of the C. P. C. registered as M. J. C. No. 2 of 2001 before the Tribunal for restoration of her claim petition on the same ground as highlighted in this petition, the learned Tribunal has by the order impugned in this revision application rejected the application of the .claimant on the finding that the petition u/s. 151 C. P. C. was not maintainable and was also barred by limitation as the same was filed after a lapse of about five months.

(3.) Learned counsel for the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2, i.e., the owner and the insurer respectively, vehemently oppose the revision application on the ground that the same is not maintainable because the Tribunal is a persona designata and not a Court and as such S. 115 of the C. P. C. has no application.