WP(C) 2151/2001 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T. VAIPHEI Heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also hea rd Mr. S.K. Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. None appears for th e claimant/respondent despite proper service of notice by paper publication. The petitioner has been impleaded as Opp. Party No. 2 in the cla im petition being NWC Case No. 36/1998 filed by one Mustt. Jerina Khatun for com pensation for the death of one Rajib Ali of Village-Kalani Jalah and she claimed to be her husband. The said Rajib Ali was killed in a vehicular accident. It to ok place on 22.12.1994 and that he was a workman employed by the respondent No. 2, proprietor of Umrangso Saw Mill under Umrangso Police Station. Due to this ac cident, Umrangso P.S. Case No. 58/94 under Section 279/337/338/427/304 (A) IPC w as registered and duly investigated upon. The amount of compensation claimed by the claimant/respondent is for Rs. 7,00,000/-. According to the petitioner, another claim petition under the Mo tor Vehicle Act was earlier filed by one Asia Khatun, mother of the deceased, wh ich was registered as MAC Case No. 70/1995 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tri bunal, Nagaon. The aforesaid claim case was disposed of on a conciliation at a L ok Adalat held at Nagaon Court on 29.11.1996 by settling the case at Rs. 82,000/ -, which was paid to the respondent No. 3 herein. It may be noted that at that t ime, no parallel claim petition was apparently filed by the claimant/respondent herein. However, after a lapse of about 3 ‰ years, the claimant/respondent filed the claim petition under the Workman Compensation Act. According to Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner, the claim petition under Workman Compensatio n Act is obviously barred by Section 10 of the Act, which prescribes that such a claim petition should be filed within 2 years of the accident. He also contends that the conduct of the claimant/respondent in filing the claim petition after 3 ‰ years of the death of the deceased, has not been properly explained and as s uch the claim petition is a false and frivolous claim petition, which ought not to have been entertained by the Commission. However, the Commissioner, Workman C ompensation proceeded to register the claim petition of the claimant/respondent and impleaded the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 2 herein as party res pondents and proceeded with the case. According to the learned counsel for the p etitioner the proceeding was strongly opposed by the petitioner by filing an app lication on the grounds set forth above. However, the contentions of the petitio ner were rejected by the learned Commissioner which, according to the learned co unsel for the petitioner, is based on flimsy ground. The claimant/respondent oug ht to have appeared before this Court and contested this writ petition. Despite proper service of notice upon her, she has chosen to remain silent. In absence o f any rebuttal by the respondent/claimant on the allegation made by the petition er, I have no alternative but to presume that the case projected by the petition er has a ring of truth. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the im pugned order cannot be sustained in law. In fact, the proceeding of the learned Commission for Workman Compensation, Nagaon appears to be an abuse of process of Court. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order d ated 29.3.2000 passed by the learned Commissioner, Workman Compensation, Nagaon in NWC Case No. 36/1998 is hereby quashed. Consequently, no further proceeding s hall be conducted by the learned Commissioner, Workman Compensation, Nagaon in N WC Case No. 36/1998.