SURINDER SINGH Vs. PARMINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against order of the Additional District Judge, Ropar dated 19.08.2009 by which an application filed by the Petitioner for setting aside ex-parte award dated 02.08.2006 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ropar [for short "Tribunal"] in MACT case No. 32 of 08.06.2005 titled as 'Parminder Singh and Ors. v. Surinder Singh and Ors. MACT case No. 32 of 08.06.2005', has been dismissed.

(2.) Briefly, the Respondents filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [for short "the Act"] for compensation against the Petitioner on account of death of Manjit Singh. The said claim petition titled as was allowed and amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- was awarded as compensation. The present Petitioner was ex-parte before the learned Tribunal. He filed an application for setting aside the ex-parte judgment after a period of 2 years. The main contention of the Petitioner was that though he is not a resident of village Malikpur Tapprian, but has been proceeded against ex-parte on the basis of service effected by way of 'munadi' in the village which he had left after selling his property. This contention has been discussed threadbare, on the basis of evidence available on record, by the learned Additional District Judge, Ropar and has observed as under:

(3.) Aggrieved against the impugned order, the Petitioner has submitted that he could not have been proceeded against exparte on the basis of service effected by way of 'munadi' in his village. In support of his contention, he has basically relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rabindra Singh v. Financial Commissioner Cooperation, Punjab and Ors., 2008 7 SCC 663 and a decision of this Court in the case of Harbhej Singh v. Diwan Singh and Ors., 1990 97 PunLR 203. In reply, learned Counsel for the Respondents has submitted that the Petitioner can not take the plea of his absence from the village as his wife was the serving Sarpanch of the village when the 'munadi' was conducted. This fact is admitted by learned Counsel for the Petitioner.