SURENDRAPAL SINGH WADHWA Vs. ANUSUIYA DEEWAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein is the owner of the vehicle, who was impleaded as a party (non-applicant) in the claim case No. 02/2016 preferred by the claimants/respondents No. 1 to 5 herein before the Third Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raigarh and ultimately, an ex-parte award was passed on 25/07/2017 granting a sum of 22,58,184 /- along with interest in favour of the applicants/respondents No. 1 to 4 herein. Thereafter, the present petitioner moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC stating that he was prevented due to sufficient cause from appearing before the Claims Tribunal on the date when the case was called up for hearing i.e. on 7/07/2017 as he was seriously ill and on medical treatment, therefore, in view of that, the ex-parte decree dated 25/07/2017 be set aside, which was seriously opposed by the respondent No. 6 herein i.e. the Insurance Company, by filing reply.

(2.) By the impugned order dated 30/04/2019, learned Claims Tribunal rejected the application filed by the petitioner herein under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC holding that the petitioner / owner of the vehicle has not produced the copy of the permit of his vehicle as he has violated the terms of the Insurance Company, by which liability has been imposed upon the petitioner/owner against which he has preferred this writ petition.

(3.) Mr. Amit Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the application filed by the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC was not considered on merits and no finding has been recorded by the Claims Tribunal that petitioner was not prevented by sufficient cause from appearing before the Tribunal on the date when the case was called up for hearing but on the extraneous consideration that the petitioner did not produce the permit of his vehicle and thereby, he violated the terms of the Insurance Company, his application has been rejected which is absolutely bad in law.