AJMER VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD Vs. ABDUL KAYUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this civil miscellaneous appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter 'the 1988 Act') a challenge has been made to the award dated 17-1-2002 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tonk (hereinafter 'the Tribunal'), on a claim petition under Section 166 of the 1988 Act laid by the respondent claimant (hereinafter 'the claimant'). The learned Tribunal has allowed the claim petition against the than extant Rajasthan State Electricity Board, which subsequent to unbundling into five companies is now represented in respect of the award amount by Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Ajmer (hereinafter 'the non-claimant')

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the award dated 17-1-2002 is completely misdirected in failing to consider as to whether the claim petition under Section 166 of the 1988 Act as laid owing to damage to the vehicle and the goods therein belonging to the claimant owing to an alleged fire caused by loose hanging Electricity wires of the then extant Rajasthan State Electricity Board was at all maintainable before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Tonk. It is submitted that in terms of 166 of the 1988 Act an application for compensation could be laid before the Tribunal only in respect of an accident of the nature specified in sub-section (1) of Section 165 of the 1988 Act.

(3.) Mr. Sandeep Mathur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimant submits that the ex-parte award dated 17-1-2002 was occasioned owing to the absence of the non-claimant- appellant in spite of service. Counsel submits that having chosen not to respond to the notices issued by the learned Tribunal, it does not now lie in the mouth of the appellant-non-claimant now acting as successor in interest of the erstwhile Rajasthan State Electricity Board to set up a new case before this court in appeal as an afterthought. He submits that if the appellant as the non-claimant was aggrieved of alleged lack of jurisdiction of the Tribunal it should have contested the claim petition as laid before the Tribunal and opposed it. It is further submitted that the award dated 17-1-2002 has already been complied with and amounts thereunder made over to the claimant, consequent to which any address to the issue raised on merits will only entail an academic exercise, the claimant being poor will not be in a position to restitute the appellant even in the event of the appeal being allowed.