Civil Revision No. 2981 of 2007 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 2981 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision: 10.11.2009 Sarup Singh ......petitioner Versus Pushpa Devi and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Gorav Kathuria, Advocate. for the petitioner. None for the respondents. **** SABINA, J. Claimant filed a claim petition claiming compensation on account of death of Gopal @ Krishan Gopal in the motor vehicle accident. The claim petition was allowed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad (for short 'the Tribunal) and an ex parte award was passed in favour of the claimant on 1.5.2003 and against the present petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application for setting aside the ex parte award. The said application was dismissed by the Tribunal vide the impugned order dated Civil Revision No. 2981 of 2007 (O&M) 2 22.3.2007. Hence, the present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that there is no ground for interference by this Court. The petitioner, in pursuance of service of notice of the claim petition on him, had appeared before the Tribunal and had filed his written statement. However, thereafter, he did not appear before the Tribunal and was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 29.11.2001. The petitioner took up the plea that he had moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for deleting his name from the array of parties but the same had not been decided and he was not the registered owner of the offending vehicle on the date of accident. He further took up the plea that one Suresh Kumar Chhabra was the real owner of the said vehicle on the date of accident and he had taken the vehicle on superdari. So far as the plea of the petitioner that his application for deleting his name from the array of parties was not decided, is concerned the same was rightly rejected by the Court below on the ground that the petitioner had failed to appear before the Court to contest the application. The petitioner had also failed to establish before the Tribunal by leading any evidence that he was not the registered owner of the offending vehicle on the date of accident. He also failed to establish by leading any evidence on record to the effect that after the accident, the vehicle had been taken on superdari by Suresh Civil Revision No. 2981 of 2007 (O&M) 3 Kumar Chhabra. In these circumstances, since the petitioner had failed to establish the pleas taken by him, the learned Tribunal dismissed the application filed by the petitioner for setting aside the ex parte award. The documents regarding registration of the vehicle now placed on record are meaningless as the petitioner was required to lead the relevant evidence before the Tribunal in the application filed by him for setting aside the ex parte award. Hence, the impugned order does not suffer from any material irregularity and illegality warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE November 10, 2009 anita