SUNDARI TRIPURA Vs. ULAPI DEBBARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. S.K. Datta, learned counsel, appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. P. Goutam, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent No. 2. None appears for the respondent No. 1, even though the notice was issued by the registered post on 15.11.2011, neither the registered post was returned undelivered nor the A.D was received. In view of this, the service is deemed to have completed.

(2.) The grievance of the appellant that by the impugned Judgment and Order dated 21.07.2010, the learned Tribunal has without recording any evidence dismissed the claim but holding that claimant has failed to substantiate the claim.

(3.) Mr. S.K. Datta, learned counsel for the appellant making a reference to the finding of the learned Tribunal submits that the impugned order is perverse and the impugned order stands contrary to the object of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.