- (1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 23-7-2002 passed by 3rd Additional District Judge-cum-Pre-siding Officer. Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhanbad in Misc. Case No. 6 of 1995 whereby he has rejected the application filed by the appellant under Order 9 Rule 9 of the C.P.C.
(2.) It appears that the appellant and one Smt. Babban Devi filed claim cases being Title (M.V.) Suit No. 45 of 1991 and 46 of 1991 for the grant of compensation on account of death of their husband in motor vehicle accident. Both suits were heard together and disposed of by common judgment dated 9-2-1994. The claim application which was filed by the appellant was registered as Title (M.V.) No. 46 of 1991. It appears that the appellant was granted interim compensation of Rs. 25.000/-. However, both the suits were finally disposed of in terms of the judgment aforesaid. In Title (M.V.) Suit No. 45 of 1991, the tribunal awarded compensation amount of Rs. 74.880/- Since no evidence was led by the present appellant in support of her case so the Tribunal held that the appellant was not entitled to further compensation and, therefore, Title (M.V.) Suit No. 46 of 1991 was dismissed Instead of challenging the judgment and award in appeal the appellant filed an application under Order 9 Rule 9 of the C.P.C. for restoration of suit. The said application was registered as Misc. Case No. 6 of 1995. That restoration application was rejected by the impugned order.
(3.) After going through the entire facts of the case and hearing the counsel for the appellant I am of the opinion that the tribunal rightly held in the impugned order that the restoration application for restoration of the suit which was decided on merit was not maintainable. The tribunal also rightly came to the conclusion that the suit of the appellant was not dismissed for non-prosecution, rather by the judgment tribunal refused to award further compensation and dismissed the suit on merit.;