Rakesh Tiwari, J. - (1.) Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) This writ petition arises out of an order dated 6.11.2003 passed by the Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Etawah dismissing in default the. Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 88/01 filed by the petitioner and against the order dated 27.2.2004 by which the restoration application of the petitioner has been rejected.
(3.) It appears that the petitioner sustained injuries in a motor accident and became unable to work and hence she filed a claim petition before the District Judge, Etawah. The District Judge transferred the claim petition to the Court of Vth Additional District Judge, Etawah. The petitioner had adduced evidence in support of her case and was also cross-examined by respondent Nos. 2 and 3, i.e., Sri Virendra Singh and the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. During the course of cross-examination, respondent No. 3, i.e.. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. filed a transfer application before the District Judge, Etawah, for transferring the case from the Court of Vth Additional District Judge, Etawah, to any other Court. The District Judge vide order dated 31.8.2002, transferred the case to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Etawah. where it was registered on 2.9.2002 as M.A.C.P. No. 88 of 2001. On 6.9.2004, when the claim petition was fixed for further evidence, the case was called out but none of the parties was present. The Tribunal fixed the claim petition for 11.10.2002 for adducing further evidence/arguments and also ordered for informing the counsel for the parties about the same. From the order-sheet appended as Annexure-1 to the writ petition, it appears that the Court was vacant from 11.10.2002 to 1.7.2003. During this period the claim petition was adjourned on several dates, i.e., 16.11.2002, 23.12.2002, 4.2.2003, 14.3.2003, 15.3.2003, 24.4.2003, 1.7.2003 and 1.8.2003. On 1.7.2003 and 1.8.2003, the counsel for the petitioner was not present. The counsel for the Insurance Co. sought time and the claim petition was adjourned to 3.9.2003 for further evidence. On 3.9.2003 also the counsel for the petitioner was not present. It appears from the order-sheet that since the counsel for the petitioner was not present on 8.10.2003, the Tribunal fixed the claim petition for 6.11.2003 and also directed the office to inform the counsel for the petitioner about the order. The order dated 8.10.2003 is reproduced as under : "8.10.2003: Pukar par Yacht ke Adhivakta Hajir Nahin aye. Beema Company ke Adhivakta Hajir Hai Adesh Yachi Ke Adhivakta Ko Soochana Dee Jawe Tatha 6. 1 1.2003 Ko Waste Shesh Sakshya Pesh Ho." On the next date fixed, i.e., 6.11.2003 the impugned order was passed dismissing the claim petition in default as under : "6.11.2003 : Pukar karai gayee. Vipakshi Sankhya 2 ke Vidwan Adhivakta Upasthit Hai Bar Bar Pukare gaye. Yachi wa Vipakshi Sankhya 1 Ke or se koi Upasthit Nahin Huwa Hai. Pratiksha 3.10 Baje tak kee gayee. Adesh Yachika Yachi ki anupasthitt me Suyava Kharif kee Jati hai.";