Koshy, J.

The question referred for consideration of the Full Bench is whether the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals have jurisdiction to dismiss an application for compensation filed before them for default/non-prosecution by invoking the powers under Rule 395 of the of the M.V. Rules read with Order IX of the Code of Civil Procedure. In Lukose v. Govindan Nair (1990 (1) KLT 378), a Division Bench of this Court observed as follows:

“In other words, the Act and Rules do not empower the claims Tribunal to dismiss an application merely for default of the applicant without arriving at findings and without adverting to reasons after the stage of framing issues.” (paragraph 5)

The Court was of the opinion that after framing issues as provided under rule 379 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’), the Tribunal has no power to dismiss the case for default. In Saramma Scaria and others v. Mathai and another (2002 (2) ILR 191) relying on the decision in Lukose’s case (supra), another Division Bench held as follows:

“In other words, the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules do not empower the Claims Tribunal to dismiss an application merely for defaul