IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 1969 of 2003 Date of Decision: 4.12.2008 M/S Avanti Overseas Private Limited. ....... Petitioner through Shri C.B.Goel, Advocate. Versus Shanti Devi and others. ....... Respondent no.1 through Shri R.K.Dogra, Advocate. Respondent no2 through Shri Kunal Mulwani, Advocate. Respondent no.3 through Shri H.S.Gill, Senior Advocate with Shri Vivek Goel, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? .... Mahesh Grover,J. This revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing order dated 15.2.2003 vide which Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala (for short, `the Tribunal') dismissed the application of the petitioner filed under Order 9 Rule 13 of the C.P.C. for setting aside ex parte award dated 9.10.1998. The petitioner, who is a Private Limited Company, claims that it was the lessee of truck bearing registration No. DDL-6861, which was C.R.No.1969 of 2003 -2- .... involved in an accident. That truck belonged to M/S D.C.M.Toyota Ltd. It was alleged that one Mohan Singh was given this vehicle on a further lease and who was in possession of it as a sub-lessee. The petitioner pleaded that the ex parte award against it had come into existence as it had never been served in those proceedings. It was further pleaded that originally the claim petition was preferred by the widow of the deceased, who lost his life in the accident which took place on 14.11.1994. Initially Babu Singh was impleaded as respondent no.1 in his capacity as driver of the offending vehicle and subsequently, the claimant made application dated 1.2.1996 stating therein that Mohan Singh is the sub-lessee of the petitioner-M/S Avanti Overseas Pvt. Ltd. qua the truck in question and had prayed that he be made a respondent in the claim petition. Thereafter, on 17.5.1996, the counsel for the claimant stated that M/S Avanti Overseas Pvt.Ltd., 605, Nehru Place, New Delhi was the owner of the truck in question and on that basis, the Tribunal impleaded the petitioner as respondent no.2 in the petition and notice was ordered to be issued to it. The Tribunal noted in its order dated 26.7.1996 that none had turned up on behalf of the petitioner despite service and, therefore, ex parte proceedings were ordered against it. Ultimately, an ex parte award came to be passed on 9.10.1998 and Babu Singh & the petitioner were jointly as well as severally held liable to pay to the claimant the awarded amount, i.e., Rs.1,06,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of institution of the petition till realisation. C.R.No.1969 of 2003 -3- .... On 13.11.1999, the petitioner filed the instant application for setting aside the ex parte award, which was dismissed by the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner had never been served in the claim petition and a perusal of the impugned order reveals that only four documents have been taken into consideration which are reflected in paragraph 13 thereof. He submitted that a reading of these documents clearly shows that the petitioner had never been served and the only reason for declining the application was that it was barred by time and further that the Court had proceeded on the premise that the petitioner had knowledge of the proceedings. He further submitted that such a premise on the basis of which the Court had proceeded is falacious as it is imperative for a person to be served in accordance with law. Reference was made to the aforementioned documents which are part of the record. Controverting the contentions/ submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent-claimant contended that the petitioner had been served in accordance with law and, therefore, it did not lie in its mouth now to say that an ex parte award has come into existence and that it is not bound by the same. Reference was made to telegram dated 16.4.1996 which was sent by the representative of the petitioner to the Tribunal seeking a copy of the claim petition. He submitted that in May,1996, the petitioner was impleaded as respondent no.2 in the claim petition and thereafter, registered notice along with acknowledge due was sent to it and the same was served upon it as is reflected from the C.R.No.1969 of 2003 -4- .... acknowledgment due, but despite this, none cared to appear on its behalf. It was further submitted that there is cogent evidence on record in the shape of testimony of the Process Server, as also that of the Clerk of the petitioner- Bhim Singh, who was served with the notice. On the strength of this, it was contended that the submissions/ contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are misconceived. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent-Mohan Singh submitted that in fact, the vehicle belonged to the petitioner and he had no liability in so far as the award in question is concerned. He submitted that Mohan Singh was merely a sub-lessee which is reflected from the fact that a power of attorney was executed in his favour on 13.11.1994 and the accident had taken place on 14.11.1994. He further submitted that by virtue of this power of attorney, Mohan Singh was authorised to retrieve the vehicle on superdari. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length and have perused the record. The controversy, even though blown out of proportions, is settled once the acknowledgment due which is at page 197 of the lower court record is perused. The notice was duly served upon the petitioner. That apart, telegram dated 16.4.1996 reveals that the petitioner was in the know of the proceedings in the claim petition and, therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner now to say that it was unaware of those proceedings. Once it is found that the petitioner was served way-back in 1996, it implies that it was conscious of the proceedings which had been C.R.No.1969 of 2003 -5- .... initiated against it. The petitioner was also conscious of the accident as in 1994, it had given power of attorney to Mohan Singh for getting retrieved the vehicle on superdari. In this eventuality, it is apparent that the petitioner has made an attempt to defeat the award. It is abundantly clear that the registered notice of the claim petition was served upon the petitioner. The acknowledgment due has to be given sanctity in accordance with law and it is a recognised mode of service which casts very serious responsibility upon a person, who denies the receipt of the same to off-set it by producing cogent and sufficient evidence on record. That having not been done, I am of the considered opinion that the prayer of the petitioner is misconceived. Therefore, there is no reason to differ from the reasoning adopted by the Tribunal in the impugned order. Accordingly, the revision petition is held to be devoid of any merit and is dismissed. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that pursuant to the proceedings which the petitioner had initiated for setting aside the ex parte award, it had submitted a bank guarantee to the tune of Rs.1.5 lacs which is on record and the award itself is in the sum of Rs.1,06,000/- and that it would be in the interest of justice if this amount is taken to be as a measure of satisfaction of the award in question. The amount of Rs.1.5 lacs which is reflected from the bank guarantee available on the record shall be encashed and released to the claimant by the Executing Court forthwith, preferably within three weeks from today. The Syndicate Bank, which has issued the bank guarantee is C.R.No.1969 of 2003 -6- .... directed to honour the same and release the amount to the Executing Court for onward disbursement to the claimant. December 04,2008 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge