SHIV OM Vs. MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 19.2.2002, passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Patiala, dismissing the application of the petitioners under Order 9, rule 13, Civil Procedure Code.

(2.) Rattan Singh claimant, respondent No. 2 had filed a petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation of Rs. 8,00,000 on account of injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident. The present petitioners, namely, Shiv Om and Balbir Singh, were impleaded as the respondents in the said claim petition, being the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. Both of them were served in the claim petition and had engaged Mr. Karan; Singh, Advocate, as their counsel. Written statement was also filed by the petitioners in the said claim petition. Issues were framed. Part evidence of claimant was also recorded. However, on 1.8.2000 no one appeared on behalf of the present petitioners who were respondents in the claim petition and hence they were proceeded against ex pane. Thereafter, after recording ex parte evidence the learned Claims Tribunal gave an award for Rs. 2,00,000 in favour of Rattan Singh, claimant and against present petitioners on 4.11.2000. Thereafter on 21.12.2000, the present petitioners filed an application under Order 9, rule 13, Civil Procedure Code for setting aside the ex pane award on the ground that they were asked by their counsel not to appear in the court and that their counsel did not appear in the court on 1.8.2002 and they were proceeded ex pane. This application was contested by the claimant. After hearing both sides, the learned Tribunal dismissed the application of the petitioners on 19.2.2002. Aggrieved against the same the petitioners filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in this court.

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record, in my opinion, the present petition must be allowed, order dated 19.2.2002 passed by the Tribunal must be set aside and exparte proceedings taken against the petitioners on 1.8.2000 and the ex pane award dated 4.11.2000 must be set aside. As referred to above, the petitioners had contested the claim petition and had filed written statement after engaging a counsel. However, on 1.8.2000 counsel for the petitioners did not appear in the court and the petitioners were proceeded ex pane and ultimately ex parte award was. given against them. In my opinion, it was a fit case where exparte proceedings and the ex pane award given against the petitioners should have been set aside considering that there was no mala fide on the part of the petitioners in not appearing before the Tribunal and contesting the claim petition, especially when they had already filed written statement and had engaged a counsel. It appears that the reasons given by the present petitioners that they did not appear in the court on 1.8.2000 because they were asked by their counsel not to appear, appear to be trustworthy. Furthermore, petitioners should not suffer for the fault of their counsel if he did not appear in the court on 1.8.2000. In my opinion, ends of justice would be fully met in case the ex pane proceedings taken against the petitioners and ex pane award passed against them are set aside and petitioners are allowed to contest the claim petition from the stage at which they were proceeded ex parte before the Tribunal. So far as claimant-respondent Rattan Singh is concerned, he could be compensated by way of costs.