CR No.2350 of 2009 [ 1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2350 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 29.4.2009 Harbans Singh .. Petitioner v. Savitri Devi and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 1.4.2009, passed by the learned court below whereby the application filed by the petitioner for setting aside ex -parte award dated 12.8.1999 passed against him, has been dismissed. Briefly, the facts are that on account of death of Suresh Kumar, respondents No. 1 to 3 filed claim petition under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for award of compensation. It was stated in the claim petition that the accident had arisen on account of rash and negligent driving of truck No. PBA-3477 by the petitioner. The petitioner as well as respondent No. 4, the owner of the truck, appeared in response to the claim petition so filed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (for short, `the Tribunal'). In the written statement filed by them, the accident was denied, besides taking other pleas. During the pendency of the petition, subsequent to the filing of the written statement, the petitioner as well as respondent No. 4 absented from the proceedings and as such they were ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte. The Tribunal, vide its award dated 12.8.1999, determined that respondents No. 1 to 3 shall be entitled to payment of compensation of Rs. 4,32,000/-. It is in execution proceedings thereof that after receipt of notice, the petitioner filed application for setting aside of aforesaid ex- parte award. The application was filed on 18.3.2007. The learned court below having dismissed the application, the petitioner is before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner did not appear in the proceedings before the Tribunal, as he had been acquitted by the criminal court where he was being tried for causing the accident. He was advised that once he had been acquitted by the criminal court, payment of any CR No.2350 of 2009 [ 2] compensation by him will not arise. On account of communication gap with his counsel, the petitioner did not appear in the proceedings before the Tribunal and as a result thereof, he was proceeded against ex-parte and award was passed subsequently. It was also claimed that the petitioner had in fact engaged a counsel who had even filed written statement on his behalf and subsequently he absented from the proceedings without any instructions or communication from the counsel and for any fault in the hands of the counsel, the petitioner should not be made to suffer. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. It is a case where unfortunate widow and two minor sons of deceased-Suresh Kumar filed claim petition way back on 10.12.1995 on account of his death on 29.10.1995, in which the petitioner, being the driver of the truck, and respondent No. 4, being the owner of the truck, initially appeared and filed their written statements denying the accident. Both the petitioner as well as respondent No. 4 tried to shift the liability on each other. Respondent No. 4 stated that he had in fact sold the truck to the petitioner on 2.10.1995 and actual physical possession had been delivered to him and accordingly, he was not liable to pay any compensation on account of accident. The callousness of the petitioner as well as respondent No. 4 is evident of the fact that the truck was not insured. After filing the written statement, both of them vanished and were directed to be proceeded against ex-parte. Finally the Tribunal passed ex-parte award against the petitioner as well as respondent No. 4 on 12.8.1999. It is in execution proceedings thereof that the petitioner filed application for setting aside of ex-parte award on 18.3.2007, i.e., about 7-1/2 years thereafter. Once the petitioner had knowledge of the pendency of the proceedings against him before the Tribunal and had in fact appeared before the court below and filed his written statement and thereafter abandoned the proceedings on his own volition, there cannot possibly be any reason to pray for setting aside of an ex-parte award passed in such circumstances more than 7-1/2 years thereafter, that too when the applicant did not even approach the court with clean hands. In the present case, the stand taken by the petitioner in his application for setting aside of ex-parte award was that he was never served in the claim petition and came to know about the same only when the execution was filed, which fact was found to be factually incorrect, as the petitioner had appeared before the Tribunal and had also filed his written statement. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the petitioner had engaged Shri Hari Singh Sekhon, Advocate. Even during the pendency of the claim petition before the Tribunal, the CR No.2350 of 2009 [ 3] petitioner had been proceeded against ex- parte. Order dated 11.1.1997 (Ex. R3), placed on record, shows that earlier ex-parte order was set aside on the statement of counsel for the claimants, subject to payment of costs and it was thereafter that the petitioner paid the cost and filed written statement. Shri Hari Singh Sekhon, Advocate had been appearing for the petitioner. The case was thereafter transferred from Faridkot to Muktsar and the parties were directed to appear before the transferee court on 9.12.1997. Order (Ex.R6) produced on record shows that the petitioner had appeared in person before the Tribunal at Muktsar on 6.8.1998 and it was thereafter on account of his non-appearance that he was directed to be proceeded against ex parte on 26.11.1998 and thereafter ex-parte award was passed on 12.8.1999. Besides the aforesaid facts, the learned court below had even referred to the conduct of the petitioner in his oral evidence which was full of contradictions, where a fact which was admitted earlier, was denied later on. In view of my above discussion, I do not find that any illegality has been committed by the learned court below in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner for setting aside of ex-parte award against him. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 29.4.2009 mk