UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. SANJAY MANMOTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH the medium of this appeal, the insurer namely, United India Insurance Company Ltd. has challenged the order dated 22.12.1995 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rajouri, whereby the claim petition of the petitioners therein which was dismissed in default on 22.4.1991 was restored to its original number. The genesis of the claim petition is the accident which took place on 21.7.1985. Pt. Pitamber Dass who was the bread winner of the family of the respondents No. 1 to 5 had lost his life in the accident leaving behind a widow and four minor children. They filed claim petition in the MACT Jammu. During the pendency of the proceedings, separate Tribunals were created to try the claim petitions. This petition was accordingly transferred for disposal to MACT Rajouri. It is averred that the relatives of respondents No. 1 to 5 raised voluntary contributions to help them and engaged the services of a lawyer at Rajouri to persue the proceedings. The claimant Smt. Savitri Devi (widow of the deceased and respondent No.5 herein) was the only major. She being illiterate and poor could not keep contact with her lawyer who lost interest and subsequently absented at the dates of the proceedings. The result was that the petition was dismissed in default of appearance. Petition for the restoration of the proceedings was filed and the learned Presiding Officer MACT, Rajouri restored the claim petition on the principle that refusal of condonation of delay might result in injustice and a good cause would be thrown out without trial.

(2.) THE learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 to 5 has raised the preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the appeal. He has pleaded that u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the mode is prescribed for filing the appeal and only the person who is aggrieved by an award of the claim has been empowered to file the appeal. Since the impugned order is an order of restoration of the claim petition, so it is not an award of the claim petition and the appellant herein is not an aggrieved person of the award. This agrument of the learned counsel has been controverted by the counsel of the appellant by stating that the order of dismissal as well as the order of restoration of the claim petition was passed u/s 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act and since it was an enquiry into the claim, so it is deemed to be an award under the wider scope of Section 173 of the said Act.

(3.) ON a careful of Section 168, it becomes clear that an award contemplated by it has four ingredients, these are: -