NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. DEEPA ARYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up today for final hearing.

(2.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the orders of the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal(hereinafter referred to as the `Tribunal') dated 5th December 2000, 20th October, 2000 and the Award dated 17th March, 1999 and arises from a fatal accident which occurred in the year 1985 in which accident, the respondent No.1, Smt. Deepa Arya had lost her 32 years old husband. The claim petition was filed before the MACT by the widow, Deepa Rai, respondent No.1 along with her then minor daughter, Manisha, the respondent No.2 in this Court. The final award was passed by the Tribunal on 17th March, 1999. On 11th May, 1999 the Tribunal was moved by the petitioner insurance company by an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex-parte Award dated 17th March, 1999 on the ground that the petitioner company's liability was limited to the extent of Rs.50,000/- and the balance liability of Rs.2,22,000/- could not have been imposed upon it by the impugned award dated 17th March, 1999. On 5th December, 2000 while dismissing the application under Order IX CPC, the Tribunal noted that the claim was of the year 1985 and an earlier application under Order IX for setting aside the ex-parte order and proceedings against the petitioner/Insurance company had already been dismissed for default on 25th May, 1995 that is four years prior to the present application.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. S.D. Raman has attempted to touch on the merits of the case which can only be done if the order dismissing the Insurance Company's plea for setting aside the award is set aside. The Tribunal noted that the conduct of the petitioner Company which has been attributed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the matter to the negligence of the erstwhile counsel who did not indicate the dates of various hearings to the petitioner. It is also pointed out that the owner of the vehicle, respondent No.8 in these proceedings remained unrepresented before the Tribunal. The tribunal has given a reasoned order noticing the indifference of the petitioner company in proceedings before it and rightly noted that the accident occurred in 1985 and the award was passed only in 1999 and the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex-parte award was filed only on 11th May, 1999 in spite of an earlier application under Order IX for setting aside the ex-parte order and proceedings against the petitioner/Insurance company having been dismissed in default on 25th May, 1995, i.e., four years ago. Earlier also another application for setting aside the ex-parte award had been dismissed for default on 20th October, 2000.