DURGA DEVI MISHRA Vs. ORISSA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the Motor Accepts Claims Tribunal acting under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act has got the authority to entertain an application for restoring a claim case which happened to be dismissed for default.

(2.) IN the case in hand, the claim case, which was instituted by the appellants, was dismissed for default and subsequently restored on an application being filed. Thereafter, the contesting respondent filed written statement and issues were settled. But, when the case was taken up for hearing, a point was railed by the respondents that the order of restoration of the claim case was without jurisdiction in view of the decision of this Court in Nishemani v. Maheswar Sahu 1985 ACJ 577 (Orissa).

(3.) S .C. Mohapatra, J. in Nishemani's case 1985 ACJ 577 (Orissa), has held that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain an application under Order IX, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It appears that the attention of the learned Judge was not invited to Rule 20 of the Rules, which we would do better to extract here under: The following provisions of the first Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, shall so far as may be, apply to proceedings before the claims. Tribunals, namely, Order V, Rules 9 to 13 and 15 to 30; Order IX, Order XIII, Rules 3 to 10; Order XVI, Rules 2 to 21; Order XVII and Order XXIII, rules 1 to 3.