USMAN AHMAD Vs. AMEENA KHATOON AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Claim Petition No. 174 of 1995 had been filed on 20.7.1995 before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bijnore on the ground that claimants are legal heirs of Mohd. Kasim who died in accident while running truck. Accident in question had taken place on 29.1.1995. In the said claim petition, petitioner had entered appearance on 22.5.1996. United India Insurance Company has also filed written statement and took plea that truck number D.I.G. 4576 was not insured on the date of accident and thereafter claimants' have moved amendment application that truck number is D.I.G. 4575 in place of D.I.G. 4576. In the said proceedings petitioner, thereafter never appeared and ultimately award in question was passed on the basis of evidence adduced on 17.2.2001. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal recorded categorical finding that registration number of offending vehicle in question was D.I.G. 4575. After said award in question has been passed on 17.2.2001 then petitioner Usman Ahmad when execution proceedings have been pressed on 22.7.2007 moved an application under Order IX, Rule 13 of Code of Civil Procedure. Said application in question was dismissed for want of prosecution. Thereafter application under Section 151, C.P.C. was moved. On the said application being moved Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has considered the matter and condition has been laid therein for depositing half of decretal amount. At this juncture present writ petition in question has been filed.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner Arum Kumar Singh-I, contended with vehemence that condition which has been imposed is totally arbitrary and unreasonable, as such this Court should come to the rescue of the petitioner.

(3.) In the fact of the case and looking into the conduct of the petitioner, by no stretch of imagination said condition which has been imposed could be said to be arbitrary and unreasonable, inasmuch as death in question has taken place in the year 1995 claim petition was filed on 20.7.1995. In the said claim petition petitioner filed written statement on 22.5.1995 and after filing objection Cooperation has never been extended in the proceedings and petitioner absented himself and ultimately ex parte award was passed and thereafter for setting aside ex parte award when recovery proceedings has been undertaken then under Order IX, Rule 13 of Code of Civil Procedure an application has been moved and even after the said application was moved, on the date fixed even then no appearance has been put and same has been dismissed then application has been moved which has been allowed and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has noted conduct of the petitioner and has also noted agony of the claimants, in such a situation and in this background stringent condition has been imposed as whatever situation has been created it is on account of petitioner himself for which he has to blame himself and no one else. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is special enactment created and carved out to consider the motor accident claims with specific purposes and Motor Accident Claim Tribunal can coin its own procedure to dispense with justice and motor accident claim, as such has been justified, in such a situation and background, as such condition has been imposed. In this background there is hardly any scope of interference.