Civil Revision No. 5832 of 2006 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5832 of 2006 Date of decision. 17.09.2009 Sita Ahuja, sole proprietor of M/s Ahuja Carriers, r/o D- 1057, New Friends Colony, New Delhi. ....... Petitioner Versus 1. Tarun Kumar Kharbanda son of Lajpat Rai Kharbanda, r/o H.No.1110, Sector 7-C, Faridabad. 2. Chhotey Lal son of Jaggi Lal Yadav, C/o M/s Ahuja Carriers, 2008, Bank Street, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. 3. M/s United India Insurance Co. Rajendra Palace, New Delhi. ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. R.C. Dogra, Senior Advocate with Mr. N.C. Doabia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Chhabra, Advocate for respondent no.1. Respondent no.2 stated to be dead. Mr. Suman Jain, Advocate for respondent no.3. **** Sham Sunder, J. This revision-petition is directed against the order dated 12.10.2006, (Annexure P-2), rendered by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Faridabad, vide which the Civil Revision No. 5832 of 2006 --2-- application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for setting aside the ex-parte award dated 03.04.2001, was dismissed. 2. Krishna Devi and Tarun Kumar Kharbanda, claimants, filed separate claim petitions, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against Chhotey Lal and M/s Ahuja Carriers, for grant of compensation, on account of the injuries, which were suffered by them, in the accident, which took place on 11.02.1996 due to rash or negligent driving of truck bearing registration No. HR-29-C-8054 by Chhotey Lal, driver thereof. The owner of the truck, at the relevant time was, M/s Ahuja Carriers. The respondents in the petitions, did not appear despite due service and were proceeded against ex-parte. Ultimately, an ex-parte Award dated 03.04.2001 was passed, granting compensation in favour of the claimants. 3. Sita Ahuja, filed a petition on behalf of M/s Ahuja Carriers, respondent no.2, for setting aside the ex-parte Award dated 03.04.2001, on the grounds that she was the sole proprietor of M/s Ahuja Carriers. It was stated that she never received the summons, in the main petition, nor she had knowledge of the pendency of the same. It was further stated that the truck bearing registration No.HR29/C-8054 allegedly involved in the accident was insured, at the time of the alleged Civil Revision No. 5832 of 2006 --3-- accident, with M/s United India Insurance Company. It was further stated that since she did not receive any summons, from the Court, she was condemned unheard. Accordingly, the prayer referred to above was made. 4. In reply to the application, Krishna Devi, pleaded that the petition was not maintainable. It was stated that Sita Ahuja was estopped from filing the petition by her own act and conduct. It was stated that M/s Ahuja Carriers was under the proprietorship of Sh. Sanjeev Ahuja alias Sanjay Ahuja, whereas Smt. Sita Ahuja, mother of Sanjay Ahuja, was brought in picture, just with a view to avoid the payment of compensation, awarded by the Tribunal. It was further stated that summons were sent to M/s Ahuja Carriers, 2008, Bank Street, Karol Bagh, New Delhi through Sanjiv Ahuja @ Sanjay Ahuja, being the owner of the offending vehicle, but he refused to accept the same. Accordingly, the service was effected by affixation at the gate of the residential premises of Sanjay Ahuja. It was further stated that the Tribunal also directed to effect the service of respondent no.2, in the main petition in newspaper “Rashtriya Sahara”. It was further stated that despite publication in the newspaper, M/s Ahuja Carriers, respondent no.2, remained absent. It was further stated that M/s Ahuja Carriers was having knowledge of the pendency of Civil Revision No. 5832 of 2006 --4-- the main petition prior to 23.10.2002, as Sanjiv Ahuja alias Sanjay Ahuja got released the offending vehicle on superdari as ordered by the Court. It was further stated that in that application, Sanjiv Ahuja alias Sanjay Ahuja , claimed himself to be the owner of the offending vehicle. He further submitted that Sita Ahuja was having due knowledge of the pendency of the main petition, being the mother of Sanjiv Ahuja alias Sanjay Ahuja. Accordingly, a prayer for dismissal of the petition, was made. 5. The following issues were framed on 11.01.2003:- “1. Whether the Award dated 3.4.2001 is liable to be set aside on the grounds mentioned in the petition?OPA 2- Whether the application is not maintainable ?OPR 3- Relief.” 6. After hearing the Counsel for the parties and, on going through the record, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, dismissed the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for setting aside the Award dated 03.04.2001. Civil Revision No. 5832 of 2006 --5-- 7. Feeling aggrieved, the instant revision petition has been filed by Sita Ahuja, claiming herself to be the sole proprietor of M/s Ahuja Carriers. 8. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the documents, on record carefully. 9. The Counsel for the revision-petitioner submitted that Sita Ahuja was the sole proprietor of M/s Ahuja Carriers, but she was never served in the main petition, and, as such, was condemned unheard. He further submitted that, as soon as she came to know with regard to the passing of the ex- parte Award, she moved an application, for setting aside the same. It was further submitted that the absence of the petitioner, in the main petition was neither intentional nor deliberate. It was further submitted that even the offending truck was insured with the United India Insurance Company and, in the event of grant of compensation, it was the Insurance Company, which was liable to pay the same. He further submitted that the order impugned, being illegal, was liable to be set aside. 10. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondents submitted that the truck, in question, was owned by M/s Ahuja Carriers, when the accident took place. It was further submitted that M/s Ahuja Carriers, was impleaded Civil Revision No. 5832 of 2006 --6-- through Sanjiv Ahuja @ Sanjay Ahuja, the sole proprietor thereof, who was duly served, in the ordinary manner, as also through publication, but he failed to appear before the Tribunal and was accordingly proceeded against ex-parte. It was further submitted that Smt. Sita Ahuja, was not the proprietor or Director of M/s Ahuja Carriers. It was further submitted that even Sanjiv Ahuja @ Sanjay Ahuja claimed himself to be the owner of the truck, in question, at the time of filing the application, for releasing the same (truck) on superdari. It was further submitted that the truck, in question, was also released in his favour, being the owner thereof. It was further submitted that the order, impugned, being legal and valid, was liable to be upheld. 11. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, the revision-petition, deserves to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. When Sita Ahuja, appeared, as AW-1, she could not produce any document, on record, showing that she was the owner of the offending truck. On the other hand, the perusal of the registration certificate of truck bearing registration No.HR-29/C/8054 clearly showed that the said vehicle was registered in the name of M/s Ahuja Carriers. In Civil Revision No. 5832 of 2006 --7-- the column of specimen signatures of registered owner, signatures of Sanjiv Ahuja were appended. When Sanjiv Ahuja, appeared as AW-2, in the application, under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for setting aside the main Award, he during the course of cross-examination, in clear-cut terms admitted that the certified copy of the registration certificate, in respect of the offending vehicle, bore his signatures. Not only this, when this truck was impounded by the Police after the accident, in which the claimants sustained injuries, it was released on superdari, on the application, moved by Sanjiv Ahuja @ Sanjay Ahuja,claiming himself to be the owner thereof. Ex.R-1 bore the signatures of Sanjiv Ahuja @ Sanjay Ahuja, being the owner of the offending vehicle i.e. Truck No.HR-29-C/8054. The Court below was, thus, right in coming to the conclusion that it was Sanjeev Ahuja son of Inderjit Ahuja, who was the owner of the truck, in question. The liability of the driver and the owner to pay the compensation was fastened, as no evidence was produced that the truck at the relevant time, was insured with the Insurance Company. 12. The next question, which falls for consideration, is as to whether Sanjiv Ahuja @ Sanjay Ahuja was duly served in the main petition. In the first instance, Civil Revision No. 5832 of 2006 --8-- ordinary summons was sent for the service of Sanjiv Ahuja @ Sanjay Ahuja, proprietor of M/s Ahuja Carriers. Vide report mark-R-3 dated 6.6.1997, the Process Server reported that Sanjiv Ahuja had met him at his residential address i.e. D-1057, New Friends Colony, New Delhi and after going through the contents of the summons, presented to him, he (Sanjay Ahuja) refused to accept the same. It was further reported by the Process Server that orally Sanjay Ahuja stated that he would appear, in the Court of his own, on the fixed date of hearing. It was further reported by the Process Server, that on the refusal of Sanjay Ahuja, to accept the service of summons, copy thereof, was pasted at the gate of H.No.D-1057, New Friends Colony, New Delhi. Thus, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, came to the conclusion that Sanjiv Ahuja @ Sanjay Ahuja had intentionally avoided the service of summons. It was, under these circumstances that he was directed to be served through substituted means. Accordingly, a notice was ordered to be published in the newspaper “Rashtriya Sahara, Delhi”. Even after the publication of notice, Sanjay Ahuja @ Sanjiv Ahuja did not appear, in the Court, and he was proceeded against ex-parte, vide order dated 12.10.1998. The Tribunal was, thus, right in holding that Sanjay Ahuja @ Sanjiv Ahuja was duly served in the main petition, but he did not Civil Revision No. 5832 of 2006 --9-- come present intentionally and deliberately. There was, thus, no alternative left with the Tribunal, than to proceed ex-parte against M/s Ahuja Carriers, through Sanjay Ahuja @ Sanjiv Ahuja. The Tribunal was also right in holding that Sita Ahuja, who filed the application, under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the ex-parte Award, had no concern whatsoever with M/s Ahuja Carriers. The Tribunal was also right, in holding that Sita Ahuja failed to prove that there was sufficient cause for setting aside the ex-parte Award. The order impugned, does not suffer from any illegality, material irregularity or perversity, warranting the interference of this Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The order impugned is liable to be upheld. The submission of the Counsel for the revision- petitioner, being without merit, must fail and the same stands rejected. 13. For the reasons recorded above, the revision- petition, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed. The amount of Rs.50,000/-, if deposited by the revision petitioner, in pursuance of the order dated 16.01.2007, passed by this Court, and not yet disbursed, in favour of the claimants-respondents, shall be refunded to her. September 17, 2009 ( Sham Sunder ) dinesh Judge