IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.460 of 2004 PANKAJ KUMAR SHARMA @ PANKAJ K Versus KAILASH RAJAK ----------- 14/ 21.07.2008 The order under Challenge is dated 23.07.2004 passed in Misc. Case No. 17 of 2001 by IInd Additional District Judge-Cum- Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Begusarai, whereby and whereunder, the petition filed by the appellant Pankaj Kumar Sharma @ Pankaj Kumar under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure was dismissed on contest. A claim case was filed by widow of Kailash Rajak namely, Parwati Devi seeking compensation on account of death of her husband, being caused by the Motor, belonging to the appellant Pankaj Kumar Sharma in which the appellant did not appear in spite of issuance of summons, registered card, registered notice and publication in the local newspaper. It has been submitted that appellant being student at the relevant time was actually residing in Gaya along with his father and was engaged in process of learning of computer course at Gaya and as such he was prevented from knowing the affairs and stage of the claim case which was ultimately decided ex-parte against him. Heard Learned counsel for the other side and learned counsel for the respondent. Having gone through contents of their impugned order and the fact and circumstance, I do not find any merit in this submission that appellant was actually prevented by sufficient knowledge from - 2 - contesting the matter. When the erring vehicle Tata-407 was instrumental in causing death of husband of Parwati Devi and as such vehicle was seized and released in favour of the appellant by the criminal court on execution of sureties bond. It was also incumbent upon the appellant to have gone to the concerned court to collect information regarding institution of the claim case which was expected from a conscious and law abiding owner of the vehicle. Since appellant has been deprived of contesting the matter, so, an opportunity is given to him to contest the matter in the court below or in the Tribunal. But, at the same time he is also directed to locate filing of two other cases, if so, by two other victims, who have also met their tragic end on account of same accident caused by vehicle of this appellant and then, suo motu appear in concerned claim cases, if, so pending before the Tribunal. In the facts and circumstances, this appeal is allowed by setting aside the impugned order on payment of Rs. 2,000/- within a month, by way of cost to the other respondent, which will be a condition precedent, for affording him an opportunity to contest the matter. Sanjeet (Subash Chandra Jha, J.)