SANGEETA GUPTA Vs. PUSHPA KANWAR & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner non-claimant has preferred this writ petition against the impugned orders dated 25.08.2012 (Annex.P/2) and 23.11.2013 (Annex.4) passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pali, in a claim under Section 166 read with Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'Act of 1988') laid by respondents No.1 to 5, the claimants.

(2.) The petitioner was arrayed as a non-claimant but despite service nobody appeared on her behalf and therefore the learned Tribunal proceeded ex-parte against her by order Annex.P/2. Subsequently, when the petitioner was summoned as witness by the respondent Insurance Company, as per the version of the petitioner, she came to know about the exparte proceedings drawn by the learned Tribunal and therefore an endeavor was made at her behest for setting aside exparte order by submitting an application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC. The application submitted on behalf of the petitioner did not find favour with the learned Tribunal and the same was rejected by order dated 23rd November 2013 (Annex.P/4).

(3.) Learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants, Mr. Rajpurohit, has submitted that the claim petition is pending since 2012 and for the lapses on the part of the petitioner the respondent-claimants may be adequately compensated by means of cost.