BINITA SARMA Vs. BIREN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 24.7.1992 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Guwahati, in MAC .Case No. 41(K) of 1992 dismissing the claim petition of the petitioner under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and also the subsequent order dated 10.2.1995 passed by the same Tribunal in the same case rejecting the prayer of the petitioner under Order 9, rule 9, Civil Procedure Code 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 13.5.1990. 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 sole bread-earner in the family. The petitioner is a rustic widow. She is virtually semiliterate. Further case of the petitioner is that she was completely ignorant that in case of such motor accident she is entitled to claim the 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 11.2.1992 she filed the aforesaid claim petition before the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Guwahati. It is true that such claim petition was filed more than a year beyond limitation. Along with the said claim petition, petitioner also filed an application for condonation of delay under section 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 24.7.1992:

(3.) Further case of the petitioner is that her residence was situated at a distance of about 50 km. 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 was dismissed. However, on 19.11.1994 petitioner came to Guwahati to enquire about her case in the court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. From the office of the learned Tribunal petitioner could learn that her case was dismissed way back on 24.7.1992. Then she met the learned Member of the Tribunal and narrated her problem. Learned Member advised her to file an appropriate application for restoration of her case. Accordingly, petitioner filed an application for restoration of her claim petition along with an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of the delay. In fact, the petitioner filed the aforesaid application for restoration of her case along with the application for condonation of delay on 17.12.1994. Ultimately, on 10.2.1995 learned Tribunal passed the following order: