LAWS(P&H)-2014-1-191

SURINDER KUMAR Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.

Decided On January 22, 2014
SURINDER KUMAR Appellant
V/S
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The matrix of the facts and material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the instant revision petition and emanating from the record, is that initially, Manjit Kaur and her husband Khazan Singh claimant-respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (for brevity "the claimants") have instituted a petition to claim the damages caused to them on account of death of their son Ladi, in the motor accident in question. Since no body appeared on behalf of Surinder Kumar petitioner-owner and Baljit Singh proforma-respondent No. 4, driver of the offending vehicle, despite service, so, the ex parte proceedings were ordered against them by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short "the M.A.C.T."). Having completed all the caudal formalities, ultimately, the claim petition was partly accepted and an award of Rs. 1,84,500 was passed in favour of claimants by the M.A.C.T., by virtue of judgment/award dated 17.10.2003 (Annexure P1), the operative part of which is, as under:

(2.) The Insurance Company is stated to have already deposited the entire amount of compensation. Thereafter, petitioner Surinder Kumar, owner of the offending vehicle, moved an application (Annexure F3) for setting aside the ex parte award (Annexure P1) and allowing him to contest the claim petition, inter alia, pleading that although he had engaged Mr. Satish Sharma, Advocate to contest the claim petition, but he has neither appeared nor informed him about its status.

(3.) Sequelly, the prayer of petitioner was refuted by the claimants as well as the Insurance Company. They filed their separate replies, in which, it was alleged that petitioner (owner) and driver of offending vehicle, were duly served and represented by their Counsel. Subsequently, since no body appeared on their behalf, so, ex parte proceedings were ordered against them. It was alleged that no ground, muchless cogent, for setting aside the ex parte award is made out. It will not be out of place to mention here that the claimants and Insurance Company have stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the application and prayed for its dismissal.