FAO No.319 of 2008 Page 1 of 3 UNREPORTABLE * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI FAO No.319/2008 Date of Decision: April 28, 2010 RAJINDER KUMAR ..... Appellant through Mr. Ranjit Singh, Advocate versus VIDHATA DEVI & ORS ..... Respondents through Mr. SPS Rathore, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 5. Mr. K.L.Nandwani, Advocate for R-6. CORAM: HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE REKHA SHARMA 1. Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the ‘Digest’? No REKHA SHARMA, J. (ORAL) By an order dated August 26, 2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), the appellant before me who was the owner of the offending vehicle was fastened with the liability to pay a sum of Rs.1,55,356/- with interest @ 6% per annum to respondents No.1 to 5. The said order was passed in the absence of the appellant as despite service, none had appeared for him. Consequent upon the passing of the order dated FAO No.319 of 2008 Page 2 of 3 August 26, 2006, the appellant filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside of the ex-parte order against him and therein the appellant took the plea that the vehicle in question was insured with the United India Insurance Company and hence, it was the said company which was liable to pay the awarded amount. The Tribunal dismissed the aforesaid application on July 09, 2008 holding that the appellant himself had admitted in the application that notice on his behalf was received by his father. The Tribunal has also held that the Insurance Company which was made a party to the proceedings only in the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure denied the factum of the insurance of the offending vehicle at the time of the accident and the appellant never placed on record the original insurance policy. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as the counsels for the Insurance Company and the other respondents, I find no infirmity in the impugned order dated July 09, 2008. The Insurance Company was not a party to the original proceedings. The Insurance Company came into the picture only after the appellant moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. As already noticed above, the Insurance Company denied the factum of the insurance of the vehicle. The appellant who claimed that the offending vehicle was insured at the relevant time with the Insurance Company ought to have filed the original insurance policy. The same having not been filed, the Tribunal rightly rejected the submission of the appellant. FAO No.319 of 2008 Page 3 of 3 For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed. However, it will be open to the appellant to take appropriate proceedings against the Insurance Company as per law. REKHA SHARMA, J. APRIL 28, 2010 PC/ka