IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Civil Revision No. 68 of 2007 Date of decision February 25, 2009 __________________________________________________________ Ajay Kumar Sharma ….Petitioner Versus His Holiness the Dalai Lama & others. ….Respondents ___________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 __________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner : Shri Vinod Gupta, Advocate. For Respondent No.3: Shri B. M. Chauhan, Advocate For Respondents No. 4 & 5: Shri Navlesh Verma, Advocate. For Respondent No.7: Shri Satyen Vaidya, Advocate. __________________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, J. (Oral) The claimant has preferred this revision petition against the order passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal II, Mandi on an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure preferred by His Holiness the Dalai Lama praying for setting aside the award on the ground that no adequate opportunity for representation was given to the applicant before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, as there was no proper service upon him. After recording evidence, the learned Court concluded that the applicant had no notice of the institution/pendency of the case and therefore, his 1 Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure was allowed and the award set aside. Notice was issued by this Court in this petition. An attempt was made to have the dispute settled amicably. Respondents No. 1, 2 and 7 agreed to settle the matter amicably and prayed that since the vehicle was insured with respondent No.3, Insurance Company, it should also bear a part of the liability as determined by the learned Tribunal by its judgment dated 6.7.2001. This Court notices with regret that respondent No.3 despite repeated opportunities granted to arrive at an amicable settlement has adopted a recalcitrant attitude unbecoming of Public Sector Company. Valuable time of this Court has been wasted in unnecessary technical wrangles. It is undisputed before me that by its decision dated 6.7.2001, the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the petitioner herein. Respondents No. 1 and 2 before the Tribunal were held jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. All that need be said is that it is unfortunate that after a period of more than three years of making the award, the applicant approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal praying for relief of setting aside ex-parte proceedings. I am also at pains to note that the Tribunal without putting the applicant to terms straight away proceeded to set aside the award. On the question of service of the applicant-respondent, all that need be said is that the findings of the learned Tribunal cannot be faulted with. I do not find any jurisdictional error having been committed by the Tribunal. This revision petition is accordingly disposed of. The following directions are issued to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal :- 1. It shall re-admit the claim petition on its record; 2. The evidence already brought on record, shall be treated as a part of the proceedings; 3 3. The learned Tribunal shall give an opportunity to the applicant to file his defence/opposition to the claim sought and to lead such other and further evidence as may be required; 4. The claimant and also the Insurance Company will be given an opportunity of leading further evidence and to file such other pleadings as may be necessitated as a sequel to the contest by the applicant/respondent; 5. That the entire proceedings shall be concluded/disposed of within a period of six months from the date on which the parties first appear before the Tribunal and no unnecessary adjournments shall be granted by the Tribunal. The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 9th April, 2009. The Registry is directed to ensure that the record reaches the Tribunal well before that date. This revision petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stands disposed of. February 25, 2009 (Dev Darshan Sud) (ms) Judge