LAWS(ORI)-2015-12-42

PRAMILA BEHERA Vs. NARAYAN PATI AND ORS.

Decided On December 01, 2015
Pramila Behera Appellant
V/S
Narayan Pati And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is directed against an order dated 09.04.2013 passed by the 1st MACT, Cuttack by which while setting aside the order of dismissal dated 21.12.2002 and restoring MAC No. 975/1996 to file, the MACT observed that the petitioner is not entitled to any interest on her claim till the date of restoration.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that the petitioner being the mother of one Mami Behera, a girl child aged about 5 years, who died in a motor vehicle accident, filed an application before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Cuttack for grant of compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 975 of 1996 and was posted to 21.12.2002, but the same was dismissed for default of the petitioner. The petitioner in order to restore the aforesaid claim petition filed M.J.C. 118 of 2005 under Order 9, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The said M.J.C. No. 118 of 2005 was taken up for hearing on 04.04.2013. The learned Tribunal by his order dated 09.04.2013 allowed the application and directed restoration of the original case to file, but while directing so, observed that the petitioner is not entitled to any interest on her claim till the date of restoration.

(3.) Mr. A.K. Otta, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the provisions contained in Order 9 Rule-4, CPC does not contemplate any condition for restoration of the case to file. Section 171 of the MV Act, 1988 only empowers the learned Tribunal to grant additional interest while passing an award allowing the claim for compensation but the learned Tribunal while allowing restoration under order-9 rule 4, by setting aside the order of dismissal dated 21.12.2002 has no jurisdiction to observe that payability of interest on the claim till the date of restoration which is not permissible under law. To substantiate his contention he has relied upon the judgment of this court in Achhuti @ Achyutananda Bal v. Payodhar Bal and others, 1992 2 OrissaLR 382 (DB).