JOGINDER KUMARI Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.)

(2.) The delay has been sought to be explained by the appellant contending, inter alia, that in the claim petition filed before the Tribunal, the claimants had given incomplete address of the appellant and, therefore, the registered notice sent to her came to be returned with the endorsement "incomplete address". It s submitted that instead of directing the claimants to file complete address and issuing fresh notice to the appellant, the Tribunal permitted the claimants to serve the appellant through substituted service. A notice in this regard was published in the daily newspaper "State Times" in its edition dated 15th February, 2000. Since the "State Times" has a limited circulation and, therefore, the appellant could not know about such notice published in the aforesaid newspaper.

(3.) On the basis of substituted service, ex-parte proceedings came to be initiated against the appellant by the Tribunal on 27th February, 2000. The claim petition was, however, contested by the respondent-Insurance Company. The Tribunal passed an ex-parte award against the appellant and directed the Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.3,57,044/- along with pendente lite and future interest @ 9% per annum to the claimants with liberty to recover the same from the appellant. The award of the Tribunal was also not served upon the appellant. It is further pleaded that against the award passed by the Tribunal, the Insurance Company preferred an appeal i.e. CIMA No.44/2003, which was dismissed by this Court on 3rd April, 2003 at the threshold without even putting the appellant and driver to notice. The appellant complains that even at that point of time, she could not know that an ex-parte award had been passed by the Tribunal against her. Since the Tribunal in its award had permitted the respondent-Insurance Company to pay the awarded compensation to the claimants and recover the same by filing execution petition, consequently on the dismissal of appeal, the Insurance Company paid the compensation to the claimants and in terms of the award, as upheld by the High Court, filed execution proceedings before the Tribunal.