INDERPAL SINGH Vs. BALWINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal directs challenge against order dated 8.2.2012 passed by the District Judge, Amritsar whereby application under Order 9, Rule 13 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure(in short "CPC") for setting aside award dated 10.1.2011 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Amritsar (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Tribunal") has been dismissed.

(2.) Counsel for the appellants has submitted that Balwinder Kaur and others filed an application under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short "the Act") for grant of compensation on account of death of Gian Singh son of Piara Singh due to use of bus No. PB-08-AB-9971 driven by Jasbir Singh-respondent No. 5. Initially, Wazir Singh Proprietor/Managing Director/Partner of M/s Chohla Transport Company Limited City Canter, Amritsar was impleaded as respondent No. 2 being owner of the aforesaid bus. Later, an amendment was made in the application impleading Manjit Singh son of Bachan Singh, predecessor in-interest of the appellants as a respondent being owner of the bus in question. Since Manjit Singh passed away in March 2010, the appellants being sons of Manjit Singh were impleaded as his legal representatives (in short "Lrs"). It is further submitted that the appellants were proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 8.9.2010 by invoking Order 5, Rule 19-A CPC but the said provision already stood deleted from the statute in the year 2002. It is vehemently argued that as Rule 19-A was no longer in existence in the year 2010, the Tribunal committed a serious error rather illegality by invoking the said rule in order to pass an adverse order against the appellants. It is further argued that the award was passed on 10.1.2011 and the appellants gained knowledge of the award in April 2011 and filed the application under Order 9, Rule 3 CPC well within the period of 30 days from the date of knowledge, but the same was wrongly dismissed by the Court below. It is further argued that while deciding issue No. 2 pertaining to the question of limitation, the court has not adverted to plea of the appellants that they gained knowledge of the award just few days before filing of the application, therefore, the application is within limitation.

(3.) Counsel representing the claimants/respondents has supported the impugned order with the submission that as the award in question was not published in any newspaper, there was no occasion for the informant of the appellants to know about the award and thereafter to pass on necessary information to the appellants. It is further submitted that the appellants were well aware of passing of the award much prior to filing of the application, therefore, the Court below has rightly dismissed their application being barred by limitation. However, he has fairly conceded that Rule 19-A of Order 5 CPC was not in vogue in the year 2010, therefore, the Court below could not invoke that rule for passing an order of deemed service upon the appellants.