MURUGAN Vs. BALA VANNANATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first respondent in M. C. O. P. No. 784 of 2003 on the file of Motor Accidents claims Tribunal (II Additional Sub-Court), tirunelveli is the Revision Petitioner before this Court. He is aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal made in I. A. No. 759 of 2005 filed by him to set aside the aware passed on 13-12-2004 by the Tribunal. In I. A. No. 759 of 2005, the revision petitioner stated that summons were not served on him in M. C. O. P. No. 784 of 2003 filed by the first respondent herein and he came to know about the ex parte award dated 13-12-2004 only on 26-8-2005 through a retired police officer claiming to be the representative of the insurance company, the second respondent herein. Immediately he filed I. A. No. 759 of 2005 to set aside the ex parte award dated 13-12-2004. His application was seriously opposed by the respondents 1 and 2 herein by filing counter affidavits. In the counter filed by the insurance Company, it is specifically stated that they sent a notice dated 7-10-2003 by r. P. A. D. to the revision petitioner informing the pendency of M. C. O. P No. 784 of 2003 and asking him to produce all the documents relevant to the accident and his vehicle. The said notice dated 7-10-2003 was received by the revision petitioner on 10-10-2003 and the copy of notice dated 7-10-2003 were filed before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by order dated 31-1-2006 dismissed the I. A. No. 759 of 2005 and aggrieved by the same, the Civil revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2. I have also gone through the documents and the judgments referred to by them in support of their submissions.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that it is the case of non-serving of summons on the revision petitioner in M. C. O. P. No. 784 of 2003 and therefore ex parte award is to be set aside and the revision petitioner should be given a chance to contest the Claim Petition on merits, especially, when a reimbursement award has been passed in favour of the Insurance Company giving a recovery right to recover the entire awarded amount from the revision petitioner.