SURINDER KHANNA Vs. MADAN LAL AND ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the accident claim case (MACT No.1163/2010) instituted by the first respondent (the claimant) on 28.09.2010 seeking compensation for injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident statedly involving negligent driving of Maruti car, bearing registration No.CH-01E-5500 (the car), the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the tribunal) held inquiry and, by judgment dated 24.04.2012, awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,49,000/- directing the respondents Anil son of Dayanand (second respondent herein) and Surinder Chand son of Sansar Chand, resident of 3252, Sector 23-D, Chandigarh to pay the said amount with interest @ 7.5% per annum holding them jointly and severally liable.

(2.) It is now undisputed on both sides that the person described as Surinder Chand son of Sansar Chand impleaded as second respondent before the tribunal in the said proceedings is none other than the appellant before this court, his correct description being Surinder Khanna son of Sansar Chand Khanna, resident of House No.3252, Sector 23-D, Chandigarh.

(3.) The judgment of the tribunal dated 24.04.2012 whereby the liability in the above manner was fastened, inter alia, against the appellant would indicate that the appellant had suffered the proceedings ex parte. The record of the tribunal, however, reveals that in the wake of Detailed Accident Report (DAR) submitted by police in the context of FIR No.166/2010 of Police Station Narela, of which the accident in question was the subject-matter, the victim, driver or the owner of the offending vehicle not having been produced, the tribunal had issued court notices. In due course, the claimant had come up with his claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it however, wrongly describing the appellant as Surinder Khan, though his parentage and address were correctly stated. It also needs to be noted that the process issued by the tribunal for 28.09.2010 in respect of said second respondent (actually, the appellant) had returned unserved for the reason the process serving police official was unable to leave Delhi for Chandigarh on account of his then engagement in official duties concerning Commonwealth Games. The record, however, would also show that an advocate describing his name as Ravinder Mann appeared before the tribunal on 28.09.2010 and filed memo of appearance for and on behalf of the appellant. The tribunal took this as good service and proceeded further. Since no written statement was filed nor there was any participation for and on behalf of the appellant in the subsequent proceeding, the judgment was rendered ex parte. In the wake of the execution proceedings taken out through the revenue authorities, however, the appellant became alive to the situation and came up with an application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) which was dismissed by the tribunal by order dated 26.10.2013.