ASIT KUMAR MOHANTY Vs. SECOND MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged Annexures 6 -C and 6 -D, orders passed by the Second Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (referred to as the 'Tribunal') on 19 -5 -1981 and 30 -7 -1981 respectively in a case Under Section 110 -A of the Motor Vehicles Act (referred to as the 'Act').

(2.) THE short and undisputed facts are that opposite party No. 2, who met with an accident on 13 -12 -1976 with the truck bearing registration No. O.R.U. 6025 belonging to the petitioner near village Bhanpur in Cuttack -Bhubaneswar Road, instituted a claim case Under Section 110 -A of the Act (registered as Misc. Case No. 16 of 1977) claiming compensation of Rs. 45,000/ -. In course of the proceeding, the Tribunal framed issues by order dated 2 -3 -1978 and the case was posted for hearing from time to time and lastly on 9 -1 -1979, it was dismissed for default, because opposite party No. 2 did not take steps (Annexure 6 -A). On 7 -2 -1979 opposite party No. 2 filed a petition Under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure (referred to as the 'Code') (registered as M.J.C. No. 7 of 1979). This M.J.C. was also dismissed for default on 2 -7 -1979. Long thereafter on 4 -7 -1980 opposite party No. 2 filed a petition (registered as M.J.C. No. 20 of 1980) purported to be Under Section 151 of the Code for restoration of the claim case (Misc. Case No. 16 of 1977), M.J.C. No. 20 of 1980 was taken up for hearing on 19 -5 -1981 and the Tribunal relying upon the decision reported in Suresh Kumar Moharana v. Brundaban Barik and Anr. 52 (1981) CLT 181, restored the claim case and posted the same for hearing (Annexures 6 -C and 6 -D).

(3.) AT the time of hearing of the writ petition, one of the legal questions that arose for consideration was whether the provisions of Order 9 of the Code are applicable to a claim case Under Section 110 -A of the Act. This point has been answered by this Court in the case of Suresh Kumar Moharana (supra) and is no longer open to doubt in view of the provisions of Rule 20 of the Orissa Motor Vehicles (Accidents Claims Tribu nal) Rules, 1960 (referred to as 'the Rules'). Thereafter, if a claim case is dismissed for default or is decided ex -parte, the aggrieved party can invoke Rules 4, 9 and 13 of Order 9 of the Code, as the case may be, for appro priate relief.