PRAWEJ ANSARI Vs. HATIM ALI ANSARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the parties finally.

(2.) PETITIONER has challenged the order dated 4.5.2005, passed in M.J.C. Case No. 43/2000 allowing the prayer of the Insurance Company to recover the amount from the petitioner -owner of the vehicle and also the order dated 22.8.2005, passed in the same case refusing to review the said order.

(3.) COUNSEL for the Insurance Company submitted that the petitioner (owner of the vehicle) appeared in the main claim case and filed written statement but thereafter chose not to appear. The case was fixed for hearing ex parte. He further submitted that a clear finding was recorded by the Tribunal that the vehicle in question was being driven by a minor boy. He submitted that as the tribunal inadvertently missed to give liberty to the Insurance Company to recover it from the owner, the Insurance Company had to file the said application for correction/modification of the order. He further submitted that petitioner cannot be allowed to reopen the judgment of the Tribunal as no appeal was filed by him against the judgment dated 16.4.2005. He further submitted that in such circumstances, it cannot be said that the said application was not maintainable.