HARISINGH Vs. KALLOBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANTS have filed this appeal against the order dated 14. 02. 2006 passed by Additional District Judge, Ganj-Basoda, district Vidisha in MJC No. 03/05 rejecting the application filed by appellants under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside exparte award passed under the provisions of Motor vehicles Act.

(2.) CLAIMANTS-RESPONDENTS, Kallobai, Dularibai and Guddi filed a claim application for compensation before the Claims Tribunal pleading that deceased kamalsingh had been travelling in a tractor-trolley on 14. 05. 2004. The tractor was bearing registration No. MP-40-M-9110 and the trolley was bearing registration no. MP-40-M-9111. The aforesaid tractor-trolley was owned by Harisingh and it was being driven by Ganeshram at the relevant time. Due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor by Ganeshram the trolley turned turtle and Kamalsingh fell down from the trolley and died in the accident. A report of the accident was lodged at the police station and an offence was registered. Subsequently, the widow and daughters of the deceased filed a claim application before the Claims tribunal. On 29. 07. 2004 the Claims Tribunal issued notice on the aforesaid Claim-application to non-applicants. The Non-applicants, who were driver and owner of the offending vehicle, refused to take notice. Hence, they were proceeded exparte by the Claims Tribunal vide order dated 25. 10. 2004. The Claims Tribunal passed an award of Rs. 1,89,500/- on 03. 01. 2005.

(3.) AFTER passing of the award appellants filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the exparte award. They pleaded that no summons were served on them and they came to know about passing of the award on 04. 03. 2005 when the respondents tried to forfeit the tractor. In support of the application appellant ganeshram examined himself and stated that he had not received any notice from postman and with the collusion with postman notice was sent back. Harisingh also examined himself and he stated the same fact that one Governdhan with the collusion with postman has affixed a false thumb impression and returned back the summons. On behalf of respondents Goverdhan and Baijnath have been examined before the court. They stated that notices were served on the appellants.