ORDER

Date : 06-06-2022 Heard Mr. TJ Mahanta, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A Ganguly, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. 2. The instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is filed challenging the orders dated 09.01.2013, 30.05.2014 and 11.05.2015 passed in MAC Case No.37/2012.

3. A perusal of the record shows that one Ananta Bora expired on 21.05.2012, on account of an accident which took place on 26.12.2011. The respondent No.1 herein, had filed a claim petition before the Member MACT at Jorhat, wherein the petitioner who was the wife of late Ananta Bora, was impleaded as respondent No.4 and his daughter as the respondent No.5, represented by the respondent No.4. For the purpose of clarity and convenience, the parties herein are referred to in the same status as in the claim proceedings.

4. It appears from the record that on 09.01.2013, the respondent No.4 did not file her written statement and the proceedings in MAC Case No.37/2012 proceeded ex-parte against the said respondent No.4. Thereupon, an application was filed by the claimant that the name of the respondent No.4 be struck off as she had already remarried. On the basis of the said application, without issuing any notice, the Member MACT, Jorhat struck of the name of the respondent No.4 and further passed an order on the said application permitting amendment to the claim petition. The said order was passed on 30.05.2015 which is also been impugned before this court.

5. The Respondent No.4 on coming to learn about the order dated 30.05.2014 filed an application seeking review of the said order dated 30.05.2014 as well as also for vacating the order dated 09.01.2013. The Tribunal below vide the order dated 11.05.2015 rejected her application seeking review of the order dated 30.05.2014 and also refused to vacate the ex-parte order dated 09.01.2013, whereby it was directed that the proceeding shall proceed ex-parte against the respondent No.4. It is against the three orders dated i.e. 09.01.2013, 30.05.2014 as well as order dated 11.05.2015, that the Respondent No.4 as petitioner is before this Court.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and given my anxious consideration.

7. A perusal of the order dated 30.05.2014 as well as the order dated 11.05.2015 shows that the learned Tribunal below had struck of the name of the respondent No.4 in the claim proceedings on the basis of a Goan-Burah certificate to the effect that the respondent No.4 have remarried. The said certificate, however, have not passed the scrutiny of examination as is required under law but just on the basis of placing the said certificate, the learned tribunal below had accepted the said certificate to be true. It further needs to be noticed that in the review petition filed by the Respondent No.4 it was specifically mentioned that she has not remarried and the certificate of the Gaon-burah was false and fabricated.

8. A perusal of the order dated 11.05.2015 shows that the learned Tribunal below did not take into consideration those aspects of the matter, inasmuch as, there is no finding as regards the veracity of the certificate issued by the Gaon-burah and the Respondent No.4 contradicting the said certificate issued by the Gaon-Burah.

9. These are all matters pertaining to evidence which can only be decided at the time of adducing of evidence and not in the manner as has been done in the instant case. Further to that a perusal of the claim petition also clearly stipulates that the claim petition have been filed not only for the benefit of the mother of the deceased (the claimant) but also for the benefit of the wife (respondent No.4) and daughter of the deceased (respondent No.5).

10. Under such circumstances the exercise of the jurisdiction by the learned tribunal below vide the order dated 30.05.2014 whereby the petitioner name have been struck off is in excess of the jurisdiction conferred upon by the learned Tribunal by law. Further to that the man