The petitioner is aggrieved with Exts.P5 and P7 orders passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The petitioner claims to have been involved in an accident in which she had suffered injuries for which a claim application was moved before the Tribunal, numbered as O.P.(MV) No.111 of 2005. 2. When the matter was taken up for consideration on 27.12.2010, neither the petitioner or her counsel were present. The application stood dismissed as per Ext.P2. The petitioner filed applications to restore the claim petition with a delay of 118 days, which application are produced as Exts.P3 and P4. The ground stated therein is that, the petitioner had made an application for obtaining the records from the Magistrate's Court and the same had not been received. It is to be noticed that the dismissal of the claim itself was after five years. The O.P.(MAC) No. 182 of 2014 (O) 2 petitioner has also not stated as to when an application was made before the Magistrate's Court.
3. Again when the said applications came up for consideration before the Tribunal, on 18.04.2012, the petitioner remained absent nor was her counsel present. It is also evident from Ext.P5 rejection, of such applications that, there was some defect, which was directed to be cured, which was also not done. Though, the said applications were dismissed on 18.04.2012, the petitioner did not do anything to get the same restored for about five months. Again on 26.09.2012, a further application was filed to restore the same. The same was dismissed for the reason that, there was no affidavit filed in support of the application.
4. The petitioner contends that there was in fact an affidavit filed, but the same was not authenticated. On going through Ext.P6 it is clear that the Tribunal was correct in rejecting the same for the reason that, the O.P.(MAC) No. 182 of 2014 (O) 3 affidavit was not authenticated. True, the same is a technical objection, it could have been cured by the petitioner and this Court would have normally remanded the matter to the Tribunal. However, considering the delay caused as also the earlier conduct of the petitioner having not appeared twice when the claim petition was first listed for trial and later when the applications for setting aside the dismissal was considered, stands against the petitioner. In such circumstances, this Court would not invoke the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, since the Tribunal cannot be faulted.
The application stands dismissed.
AMV/27/11/ Sd/-
K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE