Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bijenbder @ Ballu vs Nahna And Others on 23 September, 2024
203
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-3897-2004 (O&M)
DECIDED ON: 23.09.2024
BIJENDER @ BALLU .....APPELLANT
VERSUS
NAHNA AND OTHERS .....RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH.
Present: None for the appellant.
Mr. Sahej Mahajan, Advocate,
for respondent No.3 - Insurance company.
SANJAY VASHISTH, J (ORAL)
1. Present appeal has been filed by the injured - appellant
namely Bijender @ Ballu, against the award dated 02.01.2004, passed by
learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonepat, in MACT case No.67
dated 09.05.2002, whereby the claim petition filed under Section 166 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, has been dismissed.
2. As per the pleadings, case of the appellant (hereinafter
referred to as 'the claimant') is that he was travelling in one Tata Sumo
bearing registration No.HR-26-9609, and the same was driven rashly and
negligently by its driver (respondent No.1). The vehicle Tata Sumo was
out of control and the same turned turtle. Due to the said accident on
13.03.2002, claimant suffered multiple injuries and was also permanently
authenticity of this order/judgment
FAO-3897-2004 (O&M) -2-
disabled by his left hand. One DDR No.36 dated 13.03.2002 was also
registered by the police. However, no FIR was got registered.
3. After inviting pleadings from the respective parties, vide
order dated 10.01.2003, learned Tribunal has framed following issues:-
1. "Whether the petitioner suffered injuries in the motor
vehicle accident caused due to rash and negligent
driving of TATA Sumo No.HR-26-9609, owned by
respondent No.2, insured with respondent No.3, and
being driven by respondent No.1 on 13.03.2002 in the
area of Thana Kalan? OPP
2. If issue No.1 is proved, to what amount of
compensation, the petitioner is entitled, if so and from
who? OPP
3. Whether respondent No.1 was not holding a valid
driving licence on the date of accident, if so its effect?
OPR.3.
4. Relief."
4. Claim petition has been dismissed by learned Tribunal,
primarily for the reason that the claimant failed to lead any evidence,
despite granting of numerous opportunities, which resulted into the
closing of the opportunity of evidence by the Court on 29.10.2003. Even,
the application for recalling of the said order was also dismissed. Thus,
there being no evidence, learned Tribunal was constrained to dismiss the
claim petition, as per the findings recorded in paragraph No.7 of its
award.
5. Today, there is no representation on behalf of the appellant
to assist the Court.
authenticity of this order/judgment
FAO-3897-2004 (O&M) -3-
6. Faced with the situation, this Court has no other option,
except to dismiss the present appeal in default.
7. Accordingly, present appeal stands dismissed in default.
8. However, in case, any substantive issue still exists along
with cause of action, requiring its adjudication; liberty is granted to the
appellant to move an appropriate application for seeking revival of the
present appeal, within eight weeks from today.
9. It is clarified that if any such application is filed for seeking
revival of the appeal by the appellant, an advance copy of the application
would also be delivered to the opposite counsel i.e. respondent(s), and in
case, appeal is revived for its disposal on merits, for no reason, except for
the exceptional circumstances, hearing of the appeal would be deferred.
Therefore, both the sides should remain present and ready for the purpose of
addressing the final arguments.
10. Registry is directed to forward copy of the today's order at
the address of the appellant mentioned in the appeal.
(SANJAY VASHISTH)
23.09.2024 JUDGE
Lavisha
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
authenticity of this order/judgment
