FAO No. 1545 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- FAO No. 1545 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: August 19, 2009 Shabbir Ahmed ........ Appellant Versus New India Assurance Company Limited and others .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Sandeep Jasuja, Advocate for the appellant Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate for respondent No. 1-Assurance Company None for respondents No. 3 and 4 -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that an ex parte award was passed against appellant, Shabbir Ahmad, on 05.03.2004 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad and in favour of the claimants/dependants of Zakir, who died in a vehicular accident, which took place on 24.08.2000. The appellant moved an application for setting aside the aforesaid award on 04.08.2006, which was dismissed on 24.02.2009. However, learned counsel for the appellant disputed the aforesaid date and stated that the application was moved on 04.07.2006. FAO No. 1545 of 2009 (O&M) 2 The aforesaid application was dismissed on account of vital facts duly taken note of and the appellant was proceeded against ex-parte on 05.12.2000. Later on, the appellant did put in appearance through his counsel, but subsequent thereto, his counsel did not put in appearance and he was once again proceeded against ex-parte on 01.05.2001. Another counsel, i.e. Mr. R.S.Tanwar, moved an application for setting aside ex parte proceedings on behalf of the appellant, which was allowed, but no written statement was filed. Due to this, the appellant once again suffered an ex parte proceedings on 01.02.2002. Heard. In spite of the above vital facts, learned counsel for the appellant has pleaded his case to be heard on merits. Normally, the Court may not have interfered with the order. Facts relevant in this case have weighed heavily with the Court to allow him one opportunity to explain his delay. The appellant, who was stated to be a registered owner of Jeep bearing registration No. HR 28-4512 had sold the same to one Sirajuddin son of Suleman, resident of Village Bisru, Tehsil Punhana, District Gurgaon in the month of May, 2000. The aforesaid Sirajuddin got the vehicle in question registered in his name on 17.07.2000, which fact is evident from the record of the Transport Authority. After registration of the vehicle in the name of Sirajuddin, it met with an accident on 24.08.2000, and Cleaner of the Jeep i.e, Zakir succumbed to the injuries suffered in that accident. While filing the claim petition, the claimants did not implead the registered owner of the vehicle in question, i.e. Sirajuddin and rather they impleaded the appellant, previous owner of the Jeep in question. Learned counsel for the respondent Company although does not dispute the factual position, submits that a confusion had been created in this case on account of the fact that the Insurance Policy continued to be in the name of the FAO No. 1545 of 2009 (O&M) 3 original owner of the Jeep i.e. the present appellant. In case the aforesaid facts are correct, then it is apparent that a great injustice has been done to the appellant, inasmuch as, compensation has been granted to the dependants of the deceased, to be paid by the Insurance Company with liberty to recover the same from the appellant, who had nothing to do with the vehicle in question on the date of accident, as he had already sold the same to Sirajuddin. It is also apparent from the order dismissing the application for setting aside the ex-parte award that no application for condonation of delay was moved by the appellant, which according to the learned counsel for the appellant, was due to wrong advice. It is further stated that the appellant was totally misled and he had no idea that his advocate was not appearing in the case. As such, he did not get to know about the order being passed against him. It was stated that the delay was to be from the date of the knowledge. As such, he should be given an opportunity to explain the delay. The appellant, herein, is not aggrieved with the grant of compensation but with the direction that the same is ordered to be recovered from him and states that he should be granted one opportunity to pursue the same. Keeping in mind the facts and circumstances of the present case, it would be necessary in the interest of justice, equity and fair play to set aside the order dated 24.02.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad and remand back the matter to it to decide the application afresh, subject to the appellant moving an application for condonation of delay. Such an application will also be considered on the grounds enumerated in that application. As such, any observations made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case while deciding the application. The instant appeal is, therefore, allowed subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- as costs, which shall be shared by the respondent- FAO No. 1545 of 2009 (O&M) 4 Company and respondents No. 3 and 4. The instant appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge August 19, 2009 mohan