KULWINDER KAUR Vs. ANITA KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CMP (M) No. 804 of 2008, CMP No. 701 of 2008 and FAO No. 474 of 2008 Respondents No. 2 and 3 served, but not present. Hence, proceeded against ex -parte. Name of respondent No. 6 stands deleted.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that respondents No. 1 to 5 filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hamirpur, praying that Kamal Dutt, predecessor in interest of the claimants, had died in a motor vehicle accident involving Pick -up Van Sumo No. HP 22 - 6436 and truck No. CHW -4623. It is alleged that the truck in question was being driven by respondent No. 2, Charanjit Singh, in a rash and negligent manner and hence, the accident was caused.

(3.) THEREAFTER , execution petition wais filed and property of Charanjit Singh was ordered to be sold in the execution proceedings. At this stage, the present appellants, who are the legal heirs of Charanjit Singh, filed the present appeal. According to them, they acquired knowledge about the pendency of the case before the learned MACT only after such notice was received. Now, the appellants have filed the applications seeking permission to challenge the award being legal heirs of Charanjit Singh, praying for condonation of delay in filing the appeal on the ground that they were not aware about the pendency of the proceedings and lastly, they submitted that since the award has been passed against a dead person, it is null and void and as such not legally executable. The application for permitting the appellants to challenge the award being legal heirs of Charanjit Singh and the application for condonation of delay are allowed in view of the averments made by the appellants that they came to know about the impugned award only after the property was attached.