IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 5353 of 2009 Date of decision: 23.5.2011 Sahib Singh … Petitioner versus Babloo and others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present: Mr. Mani RamVerma, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Akshay Kumar Goel, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.2 ... ARVIND KUMAR, J: The present petitioner-owner is aggrieved with order dated 6.2.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge, Bhiwani, whereby his application for setting aside award dated 17.5.1999 has been dismissed. The facts are that one Surinder Kumar who was sitting on tractor bearing No. UP-15A/-0842 along with bags of sugar driven by Babloo which was owned by Sahib Singh, the present petitioner, met with an accident on 5.11.1995 as it turned turtle resulting into the death of Surinder Kumar. His widow Maya Devi filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. An award of Rs.1,92,000/- was passed in her favour on 17.5.1999. Insurance company was exonerated on the ground that the driving licence so tendered by Babloo relates to one Tejpal and it was held that there is no evidence that Babloo is also known as Tejpal and as such, liability to pay compensation was fastened on the driver and the owner of the vehicle. During execution proceedings, Sahib Singh-owner, filed an application on 17.8.2000 that he was already ex parte and never thumb-marked any power of attorney nor did he engage Shri R.C.Gaur, Advocate, and as such, the ex-parte award against him be set aside. The claimants had not objected to the allowing of the application but the C.R. No. 5353 of 2009 -2- insurance company had contested it. As indicated above, the said application has been dismissed. Hence, the present revision. Heard. The parties were allowed to lead evidence in support of the application filed by the petitioner Sahib Singh. The claim of the petitioner was that he never thumb-marked any power of attorney nor did he sign any written statement to the claim petition and also claimed that Babloo, driver, is also known as Tejpal. The hand-writing expert was examined with regard to his thumb-impression and his report is inconclusive. Shri R.C.Gaur, Advocate, was also examined but he deposed that the word 'LTI' has not been mentioned along with the thumb-impression of Sahib Singh. He is also not sure about the thumb-impression of Sahib Singh on the power of attorney. Various documents had been tendered including voters' list and Kisan Bahi, indicating that Babloo and Tejpal is one and the same person. The vehicle was stated to be validly insured. Counsel for the claimants herein also does not oppose the acceptance of the revision petition. In this back-drop of the facts, the revision petition is allowed, the impugned order is set side and the application for setting aside award dated 17.5.1999 is allowed. The case is remitted to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani, for its disposal expeditiously, preferably within three months. This order is however, subject to payment of costs of Rs.30,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the claimants who undertake that they will not claim any interest from the year 2000 till the disposal of the claim petition. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani, on 3.6.2011. Copy of the order be given Dasti, attested under the signatures of Court Secretary of this Court. May 23, 2011 ( ARVIND KUMAR ) JS JUDGE