BINITA SARMA Vs. BIREN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 24.7.92 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Guwahati, in MAC Case No. 41 (K) /92 dismissing the claim petition of the petitioner under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and also the subsequent order dated 10.2.95 passed by the same Tribunal in the same case rejecting the prayer of the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC for setting aside the order of dismissal and for restoration of her claim case.

(2.) The case, in short, is that Late Nagen Sarma was the husband of the petitioner and he died in a motor accident, as stated in the petition. The accident in question took place on 13.5.90. Late Nagen Sarma at the time of his death left behind him the present petitioner being his wife and his two minor sons, who were then aged about 4 and 10 years respectively. Nagen Sarma at the time of his death was aged about 42 years. He was the sola bread earner in the family. The petitioner is a rustic widow. She is virtually semi literate. Further case of the petitioner is that she was completely ignorant that in case of such motor accident she is entitled to claim compensation and for that purpose she is required to file a claim petition before the appropriate Tribunal. Because of her ignorance she did not file any claim petition initially. However, on 11.2.92 she filed the aforesaid claim petition before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Guwahati. It is true that such claim petition was filed more than a year beyond limitation. Alongwith the said claim petition, patitioner also filed an application for condonation of delay u/s 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing the claim petition. After the case was adjourned on several dates, learned Tribunal finally passed the following order on 24,7.92.

(3.) Further case of the petitioner is that hear residence was situated at a distance of about 50 kms from the office of the said Tribunal. She had virtually no means of livelihood and in such condition she was to maintain two minors. Her lawyer also did not inform her that her claim petition has been dismissed. However, on 19.11.94 petitioner came to Guwahati to enquire about her case in the Court of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. From the office of the learned Tribunal petitioner could leam that her case was dismissed way back on 7.9.92. Then she met the learned Member of the Tribunal and narrated her problem. Learned Member advised her to file an appropriate application tor restoration of her case. Accordingly, petitioner filed an application for restoration of her claim petition alongwith an application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of the delay. In fact, the petitioner filed the aforesaid application for restoration of her case alongwith the application for condonation of delay on 17.12.94. Ultimately, on 10.2.95 learned Tribunal passed the following order: