BALBIR SINGH Vs. PUSHPA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FACTS giving rise to this petition are that petitioner is owner of bus No USY 2375 which met an accident on 12.9.1984, at about 6.30 p.m., in which Kailash Nath Singh, husband of respondent No. 1 and father of respondents 2 to 4, died. Kailash Nath Singh was employed as a primary school teacher at the relevant date and time and was coming back from the school alongwith a fellow teacher Raj Bahadur Singh.

(2.) MOTOR Accident Claim Petition No. 38 of 1984 was filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 4 claiming damages on 19.10.1984. It may be mentioned here that petitioner did not appear before the Claims Tribunal in spite of notice by Court, though all the modes including publication on 24.3.1985 were resorted to. The claim petition was ultimately allowed and an award was passed on 6.9.1986 which followed an application under Order 9, Rule 13, C.P.C. by petitioner. The application of petitioner was allowed by the learned Tribunal vide its order dated 1.8.1987 on the condition that petitioner deposits a sum of Rs. 50,000/-. Petitioner challenged the aforesaid order in this Court by filing First Appeal From Order No. 664 of 1987 and this Court by order dated 4.9.1987 stayed the condition contained in she order dated 1.8.1987 requiring petitioner to deposit Rs. 50,000/-. However, further proceedings before the Tribunal after restoration were not stayed.

(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for parties. Learned Counsel for petitioner has submitted that the absence of petitioner on the date fixed was a bona fide and the Counsel for petitioner moved application before the Claims Tribunal praying for adjournment and thereafter could not appear to press the application under the impression that it shall be allowed as per normal practice of the Court. It has been further submitted that the vehicle was insured. However, the Insurance Company was not impleaded and on that date the petitioner was required to show the papers that the vehicle was insured on the date of accident and as the petitioner could not appear with the papers, application was moved on the ground of non-availability of those papers. The application was illegally rejected. Learned Counsel for petitioner has further submitted that the vehicle was transferred by petitioner in favour of Ramanand Yadav, respondent No. 7, in the month of June, 1983, for an amount of Rs. 50,000/-. Ramanand Yadav filed an affidavit before the Regional Transport Officer, Sultanpur, which has been filed as Annexure 1 to the rejoinder affidavit. The affidavit is dated 25.7.1990. This paper shall be discussed subsequently at the relevant place.