PARMESHWARI DEVI Vs. RAMSHARAN AGARWAL @ RAMSAHAI AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, Parmeshwari Devi, has challenged the award dated 2.4.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chomu District, Jaipur and the order dated 28.7.2011 also passed by the MACT. The learned Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs. 4,60,000/- to the claimants-respondents Ramsharan Agarwal @ Ramsahai for the injury sustained by him. By the order dated 28.7.2011, the learned Tribunal has dismissed the appellant's application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case are that on 12.10.2004 around 12:00 PM, the claimant was walking towards the temple of Anjani Mata. Suddenly, a bus, bearing Registration No. RJ-18-P-1525, being driven rashly and negligently, came and hit him. Consequently, he suffered grievous injuries. Later on, he filed a claim petition. In order to support his petition, he examined two witnesses and submitted 154 documents. Despite the service of notice upon the appellant, the appellant did not appear before the learned Tribunal. Therefore, the learned Tribunal proceeded ex-parte against the appellant. Even the Insurance Company did not examine any witness. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal granted the compensation as aforementioned. Subsequently, when the appellant came to know that an ex-parte award had been passed against her, she moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC before the Tribunal. However, by order dated 28.7.2011, the learned Tribunal dismissed the said application. Hence, this appeal against both the award dated 2.4.2009, and the order dated 28.7.2011.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that since the appellant had shifted from her village Doondlod to Jaipur in 2004, the registered notice sent at her Doondlod address was never received by her. In fact, in the year 2004 she had shifted from village Doondlod to Jaipur and was residing in Mansarovar, Jaipur. Therefore, she had no information that a claim petition had been filed against her. Despite these facts, the learned Tribunal has erred in dismissing her application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC. Therefore, the case should be remanded back to the learned Tribunal for re-decision. As far as the merit of the award is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant has not raised any contention.