NISHEMANI SWAIN Vs. MAHESWAR SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Claimants in a proceeding under S.110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Act II of 1939) are the appellants.

(2.) The impugned order reads as follows : "The petitioners are absent on repeated calls. No steps taken although the time at present is 12.30 P.M. Opposite party No. 1 present through his Advocate. Other opposite parties are absent and no steps taken. Enquiry of the case is taken up. Opposite party No. 1 denies to adduce any evidence. There is no evidence to prove the claims of the petitioners. Hence, the case is dismissed as claim not proved. Parties are to bear their own costs in the circumstances of the case.

(3.) In the memorandum of appeal, it has been stated on affidavit that the counsel was proceeding to the Tribunal on a Scooter with another Advocate. On the way as there was mechanical trouble, the Scooter had to be repaired for which there was delay in reaching the office of the Tribunal. It was stated that on 4-1-1983, though the case was fixed for hearing, the Advocate was to take steps for adding the correct insurer as a party which was available from the particulars supplied by another insuring agency who was made a party. Mr. B. P. Ray, the learned counsel for the appellants was also the Advocate for the claimants before the Tribunal. He has stated at the Bar that he was proceeding to Tribunal with Mr. Kishore Kumar Jena, when the Scooter gave mechanical trouble. The facts asserted in the memorandum of appeal on affidavit and the statement of Mr. Ray at the bar are not disputed by the respondents.