Jaswant Singh Deceased Through ... vs United India Insurance Company ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 16024 P&H

                            126

                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                                                   CHANDIGARH

                                                                         CR-4031-2022 (O&M)
                                                                         Date of decision : 07.12.2022


                            Jaswant Singh (deceased) through his LRs                        ... Petitioner(s)

                                                               Versus

                            United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others                    ... Respondent(s)



                            CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN



                            Present :    Mr. R.K. Arya, Advocate for the petitioner.



                            ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)

The present revision petition under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India has been filed challenging the order dated 21.07.2022

passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurdaspur (hereinafter

referred to as 'Tribunal') dismissing the application filed by the petitioners

herein i.e. legal representatives of Jaswant Singh (driver of the offending

vehicle) under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC)

for setting aside the ex parte award dated 30.07.2009.

The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the petitioners

herein, who are legal representatives of Jaswant Singh (driver of the

offending vehicle), filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for

setting aside the ex parte award dated 30.07.2009 averring that Jaswant

Singh was the driver of the offending vehicle and Joga Singh was the owner

of the vehicle in question and that when the claim petition was filed Jaswant YOGESH SHARMA 2022.12.08 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

Chandigarh
                             CR-4031-2022 (O&M)                                                       -2-

Singh (driver of the offending vehicle) as well as Joga Singh (owner of the

offending vehicle) engaged a counsel and Registration Certificate of the

Tractor as well as Driving Licence of the driver - Jaswant Singh - were

handed over to the counsel who disclosed to them that there would be no

need for them to appear on each and every date as the vehicle in question

was insured and the Insurance Company was liable to pay the awarded

amount. It was further averred that the counsel thereafter did not appear and

an ex parte award dated 30.07.2009 was passed. Thereafter, the application

filed by the Insurance Company under Section 174 of the Motor Vehicles

Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1988') was dismissed by the

Tribunal and they were informed by their counsel that there was no need to

proceed with the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. It was further

averred that thereafter another application was filed under Section 174 of the

Act of 1988 and hence the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was filed

in the year 2017. In reply to the said application, it was averred that the

second application for setting aside the ex parte award dated 30.07.2009 was

not maintainable inasmuch as the previous application stood dismissed in

default on 21.03.2013 due to non-appearance of the applicants. It was further

averred that the application for restoration of the said application for setting

aside the ex parte award dated 30.07.2009 was also dismissed as withdrawn

by the petitioners vide order dated 27.05.2015. On the basis of the pleadings

of the parties and the evidence led, the application under Order 9 Rule 13

CPC was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 21.07.2022.

The only argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioners YOGESH SHARMA 2022.12.08 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and is that the petitioners were misled by the counsel. integrity of this order/judgment.

Chandigarh
                             CR-4031-2022 (O&M)                                                         -3-

                                            Heard.

The argument of learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be

accepted inasmuch as the petitioners were well aware of the orders being

passed by the Tribunal. In fact, earlier Jaswant Singh (driver of the

offending vehicle) and Joga Singh (owner of the offending vehicle) appeared

through counsel on 16.10.2006 in the claim petition and also filed their

written statement on 06.12.2006. However, thereafter they did not appear

and vide order dated 15.10.2008 they were proceeded against ex parte and

ultimately the ex parte award dated 30.07.2009 was passed by the Tribunal.

Thereafter, an application for setting aside the ex parte award dated

30.07.2009 was filed which was dismissed in default on 21.03.2013. An

application was thereafter filed for restoration of the said application which

was withdrawn by the counsel for the petitioners herein as well as counsel

for Joga Singh (owner of the offending vehicle) vide order dated 27.05.2015.

There is no reason forthcoming for condoning the conduct of the petitioners.

The award was passed in the year 2009 and the present application, which is

the second application, has been filed in the year 2017.

In view of the above, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in

the order passed by the Tribunal. The present revision petition being wholly

devoid of any merit is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending applications, if any,

also stand disposed off.

                                                                             ( ALKA SARIN )
                            07.12.2022                                            JUDGE
                            Yogesh Sharma

NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO YOGESH SHARMA 2022.12.08 10:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

Chandigarh