SAPANA MISHRA Vs. RANI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present case. Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 1057 of 2004 had been filed. In the said motor accident claim petition appearance has been put in by the Petitioner and repeated time was provided for but there was complete non-co-operation on the part of the Petitioner and then orders were passed to proceed ex parte and ultimately award in question were passed on 24.1.2008. In the said proceedings Petitioner moved an application under Order IX, Rule 13, Code of Civil Procedure by contending therein that at no point of time Petitioner had ever been served with notice and further at no point time she has received summons and appended her signature and further she has not engaged any one. Said application was objected to by filing rebuttal to the same and to the said rebuttal no further objection has been filed by the Petitioner and thereafter Motor Accident Claims Tribunal considered the said application moved on behalf of Petitioner and found that summons which were received back bear endorsement of Petitioner and on prima facie comparison same was tallying with the signature of Petitioner, in this background proceeded to reject the application on the ground that Petitioner had full knowledge and notice of the proceedings. At this juncture present writ petition in question has been filed.

(2.) Sri K.K. Tripathi, advocate, contended with vehemence that Petitioner had no knowledge or notice of the proceeding and as such liberal view ought to have been taken in the matter.

(3.) After respective arguments have been advanced factual situation qua which categorical finding of fact has been returned that summons were issued to the Petitioner on 9.3.2009 and the summon so received back in the Court, same contained signature of the Petitioner. Petitioner was insisting that it was not her signature. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in its turn proceeded to compare the signature of the Petitioner which were available on the summons and found that signature which were available on the summons were of the Petitioner and, in this background Petitioner was not at all truthful in moving application under Order IX, Rule 13, Code of Civil Procedure Coupled with this Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has also noted this important aspect of the matter that to the said application rebuttal has been filed by the claimants and at no point of time to the specific rebuttal submitted by the claimants any reply has been filed. Once this is the factual scenario that finding of fact has been returned that in spite of service being there the Petitioner has chosen not to participate in proceedings then in this background Motor Accident Claims Tribunal rightly proceeded to reject the application moved under Order IX, Rule 13, Code of Civil Procedure then this Court cannot come to the rescue of the Petitioner.