1. Heard Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. Lodh, learned counsel for the respondent-insurance company.

2. This petition has been presented under article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the judgment and order dated 18.5.2006 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (District Judge) Court No. 1, West Tripura, Agartala in T.S. (MAC) No. 223 of 2003 whereby the aforesaid claim petition has been dismissed on account of default.

3. The relevant portion of the aforesaid impugned judgment and, order is extracted hereinbelow : -

".... It is found that as per last order dated 21.3.2006, the petitioner was directed to adduce evidence today positively. It is also found that as many as four adjournments are already granted in favour of the petitioner to adduce evidence. It also reveals from the record that on last occasion, prayer for time was submitted on behalf of the petitioner on the ground of illness.

No necessary certificate is submitted along with the application in support of illness. Moreover, on call, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Datta, is found absent and the prayer for time is not moved.

As such, I find that there is no merit to allow the instant prayer for time. The same is rejected.

Accordingly, the case is dismissed for default of the petitioner."

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Deb has invited the attention of this court to the decision rendered by this court in the case of Binoy Kumar Banik v. New India Assurance Co., 1997 (3) GLT 501 where it was observed that a petition for payment of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 cannot be dismissed for default and thereafter, this court set aside the impugned order with a direction to the MACT to dispose of the matter on merits in accordance with law after considering the materials available on record.

5. By an order dated 16.6.2006 (Single Bench) of this court passed in the case of Shri Ashutosh Acharjee v. Sri Abhijit Debbarma in W.P.(C) No. 388 of 2005 preferred under article 227 of the Constitution of India against the judgment and order dated 11.7.2005 in connection with TS (MAC) No. 282 of 2003, this court interfered with the order of dismissal on account of default dated 11.7.2005 of the application seeking compensation under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In the said writ proceeding, the impugned order dated 11.7.2005 was set aside and the learned Tribunal was directed to dispose of the claim petition of the claim in accordance with law on the basis of the available materials on record.

6. Such similar order was made by this court (learned Single Judge) on 17.11.2006 while disposing of CRP 55 of 2006 preferred under article 227 of the Constitution against the dismissal of default order dated 12.5.2005 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala in T.S. (MAC) No. 483 of 2003 directing learned Tribunal to adjudicate the claim petition in view of the directions indicated in the order.

7. Mr. Deb, learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in (2000) 9 SCC 394 (K. Trivikram v. Mohd. Abdul Kareem Khan) submits that the application for grant of compensation cannot be dismissed on account of default. In this case the claim petition for compensation in reference to the permanent disability of the claimant was dismissed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for default on the ground of delay/laches in prosecuting the claim and the High Court too in the revision petition under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('CPC') against the dismissal of the application for restoration of the claim did not interfere with the order, however, keeping in view the serious injuries and physical conditions of the claimant, High Court's order was set aside by the hon'ble Supreme Court restoring the claim petition under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 with certain directions.

8. Law is well settled by a catena of decisions that an applic

Click Here to Read the rest of this document