IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO (Ord.) No. 476 of 2002. Judgement reserved on: Date of decision: 8.5.2008. Vikram alias Vikki ….. Appellant. Vs. Sumit Kumar & anr. …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. Sanjay Dutt Vasudeva, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. B.M. Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral). This appeal has been directed against the order dated 29.6.2002 passed by learned M.A,.C.T (III), Kangra at Dharamshala in Civil Misc. Application No. 206-K/1999 vide which the learned Tribunal has refused to set-aside the exparte award dated 28.10.1999 passed by learned M.A.C.T. (III), Kangra at Dharamshala in MACT Pet. No. 25-K/1998. 2. The facts in brief are that respondent No.1 Sumit Kumar aged about 12 years had filed MACT Petition No. 25-K/1998 claiming compensation on account of injuries sustained by him in an accident which took place on 15.6.1997 involving scooter bearing registration No. HP-40-1702 which was being driven rashly and negligently by Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… Vikram alias Vikki appellant and the scooter was insured with respondent No.2. The respondent No.1 was proceeded exparte on 14.1.1999 and ultimately learned Tribunal passed an award dated 28.10.1999 against appellant directing him to pay a sum of Rs.9500/- plus 12% interest with effect from the date of filing of the petition i.e. 21.7.1998 alongwith Rs.500/- as costs. The appellant on 1.12.1999 filed an application, under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC for setting aside exparte award dated 28.10.1999. In the application, it has been pleaded that he appeared through counsel Sh. Vivek Vashisth before the Tribunal and thereafter the counsel did not put in appearance on behalf of the appellant, resultantly the appellant was proceeded exparte on 14.1.1999. The appellant was not informed of the order dated 14.1.1999. The appellant happened to visit the court on 2.11.1999 and on that date he came to know that an exparte award has been passed against him. On these grounds, the appellant prayed for setting aside of the exparte award. 3. This application was contested by respondent No. 1 as well as by respondent No.2 by filing separate replies. The learned Tribunal refused to set-aside the exparte award vide impugned order, hence this appeal. 4. I have heard Mr. Sanjay Dutt Vasudeva, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. B.M. Chauhan, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and gone through the record. The appellant has appeared as PW 1 and has stated that he had engaged Mr. Rakesh Bharti and Mr. Vivek Vashisth, Advocates in the case. He was given 2.11.1999 date in the claim case. On that date, he came to know that he was …3… proceeded exparte, prior to that his advocates did not inform him the exparte order nor he received intimation from the court that he has been proceeded exparte. He filed the restoration application when he came to know about exparte award. In cross examination he has stated that he does not remember that how many times he met his advocate. He has also stated that he never inquired from his advocate of the date fixed in the claim petition. The perusal of the record would show that appellant had engaged Mr. Vivek Vashisth and Mr. Vinod Vashisth, Advocates on 15.10.1998 in the claim case. On 14.1.1999, none appeared on behalf of the appellant before the Tribunal and, therefore, he was proceeded exparte. In the application, under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC it is not the case of the appellant that at any time he was told by his advocates not to appear in the court on the dates fixed. The appellant had the duty to defend his case and remain in contact with his advocates. In his statement, he has stated that he was told that the claim case was fixed on 2.11.1999 and on that date, he came to know that he was proceeded exparte. This stand of the appellant is wrong. The award was given by the learned Tribunal on 28.10.1999, therefore, there is no question of fixing the claim petition on 2.11.1999. The appellant has not given any explanation why he did not appear on 14.1.1999 in the case. It was for the appellant to look after his interest in the claim case and he cannot shift the burden on his advocates. It appears the appellant had taken the case very lightly. The Tribunal on 15.8.1998, 9.12.1998 and 2.1.1999 gave time to file the reply and the case …4… remained pending before the Tribunal for more than one year but during this period the appellant even did not file any reply. 5. In Suresh Kumar vs. Smt. Daryai and others, 1996 (3) PLR 379, it has been held that merely by engaging a counsel the petitioner did not get an immunity from prosecuting his case by appearing in the Court. It was for the petitioner to have looked after his interest in the case by personal appearance or by ensuring the appearance of his duly instructed counsel. The award is of Rs.9,500/- alongwith interest. The learned Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the case has rightly not set-aside the exparte award dated 28.10,1998. The appellant has not made out any case for interference. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. May 8, 2008. ( Kuldip Singh ) (Hem) Judge.