BANSHILAL Vs. PREM KANWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant-non-complainant has preferred this appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(d) CPC to challenge order dtd. 15/3/2018, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balotra (for short, 'learned Tribunal'). The learned Tribunal, by the order impugned, rejected the application of appellant under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Sec. 151 CPC for setting aside ex-parte judgment and award dtd. 12/12/2014, passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 108/2010.

(2.) The facts, in brief, giving rise to this appeal, are that claimants-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed a petition against appellant and respondent Nos. 3 to 5 under Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'Act') before learned Tribunal, inter-alia, claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.30,11,000.00 in respect of accidental death of Lakh Singh. As per. version of the respondent-claimants, truck with trolly bearing registration No. RJ- 04-RA-0110 was driven by its driver rashly and negligently and when the same hit motorcycle of Lakh Singh, he fell down and suffered grave and serious injuries and ultimately succumbed to injuries. The appellant was impleaded as party in the capacity of registered owner of the vehicle and respondent No. 3 as driver of the vehicle whereas respondent No. 4 Arjun Singh, who allegedly purchased the vehicle, was also arrayed. Respondent No. 5- Insurance Company was impleaded because the vehicle was insured with it. The learned Tribunal issued notices to the appellant and other non-claimants. The notices issued to the appellant were served by affixation and as per report of Process Server, his wife refused to accept the notices. The refusal by wife of the appellant is also verified by Up-Sarpanch of Grain Panchayat concerned. Considering the report of Process Server, learned Tribunal found service of notices on appellant sufficient and proceeded ex-parte. Upon conclusion of the trial, learned Tribunal finally adjudicated the claim and quantified compensation to the tune of Rs.6,79,000.00. The liability to pay compensation was fastened on the appellant and driver of the vehicle while exonerating the insurer. The learned Tribunal found that the insured has violated the terms of insurance policy, and therefore, insurer is not liable to pay compensation. At the behest of appellant, an endeavor was made before learned Tribunal for setting aside ex-parte judgment and award by laying application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. The application is contested by opposite parties and finally learned Tribunal, by the order impugned, declined the prayer of appellant.

(3.) At the threshold, when the matter came up before the Court, notices were issued to the respondents. Upon service of notices on behalf of respondent No. 4, Mr. B.R. Bishnoi appeared whereas Mr. Suniel Purohitt appeared for respondent No. 5. However, nobody appeared on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 despite. service. It is in that background, the Court issued fresh notices to respondent Nos. 1 to 3 for final disposal of the appeal at the admission stage. The notices for final disposal at admission stage are duly served on respondent Nos. 1 to 3 but despite service nobody has appeared on their behalf to contest the appeal: