UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY Vs. PARAS RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These four appeals (FAOs Nos. 464, 465, 466 and 467 of 2000) are preferred by the United India Insurance Company Limited, which was respondent No. 2 in the claim petitions. It is aggrieved by the orders dated 24.8.2000, impugned in each appeal and which are identical, whereby its applications under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC for setting aside the awards dated 31.3.1998 passed ex parte against it by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II), Shimla (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), were dismissed. These awards were passed in claim petitions No. 4 -S/2 of 1995, 5 -S/2 of 1995, 6 -S/2 of 1995 and 7 -S/2 of 1995 decided on 31.3.1998. All these claim petitions arise out of the same accident of truck No. HP -09 -0807 belonging to Theog Tehsil Co -operative M & C Union Limited, Theog, District Shimla, which was respondent No. 1 in the claim petitions and insured by the appellant -insurance company, respondent No. 2 in the claim petitions.

(2.) The applications under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC were filed on behalf of the appellant -insurance company on 8.6.1998. These were supported by the affidavit of Shri Deepak Bhasin, learned Counsel, who was appearing for the appellant -insurance company in the claim petitions. It is stated in the applications that the appellant -insurance company was effectively contesting the claim petitions upto 18.4.1997 and thereafter it was proceeded qx parte, as its learned Counsel Shri Deepak Bhasin failed to put in appearance for the reason that due to bona fide mistake he did not note down further date of hearing. On 2.6.1998, the Assistant Divisional Manager of the appellant -insurance company contacted Mr. Bhasin, learned Counsel to inform him that in all the four claim petitions, a Clerk from DTO, Patiala, be summoned to prove the driving licence of the driver who was driving the vehicle in question at the time of accident. Mr. Bhasin, learned Counsel, thereafter searched his records and came to know that the claim petitions stood decided on 31.3.1998 ex parte against the appellant -insurance company It is further alleged in the applications that sufficient cause is made out from these facts and circumstances to prove that the absence of the appellant -insurance company or its learned Counsel was neither wilful nor intentional.

(3.) Reply to the application was filed on behalf of the claimants through its learned Counsel Shri D.N. Ronta, which is not supported by any affidavit. Besides taking preliminary objections that the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC is not maintainable as the provisions of Order 9 Rule 13 CPC do not apply and that the application is hopelessly time barred, the application is resisted on merits by stating that the absence of the appellant -insurance company or its learned Counsel was deliberate and because of their negligence, as they did not care to know about the further progress of the claim petitions for more than one year. It is also stated in the reply that if the ex parte awards against the appellant -insurance company are set aside, it would not only delay the final decision in the claim petitions, but also prejudice the case of the claimants.