FAO No.2193 of 2011 -1- In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh FAO No.2193 of 2011 Date of decision 28.9.2011 National Insurance Company Ltd. …Appellant Versus Iqbal Singh and another …Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr Justice Jintendra Chauhan Present: Shri Gopal Mittal, Advocate for the appellant; Shri RKS Verka, Advocate, for respondent no.2. Jitendra Chauhan, J. This appeal, preferred by the Insurance Company, is directed against the impugned award dated 04.012011, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurdaspur. In brief the facts as stated in the claim petition no. 171/221 of 2006/2009 are that on 25.06.2006 at about 10.30 pm the claimant injured was going to his village on his bi-cycle, when he reached in the area of village Naushehra Majja Singh from Santokha Nakka, a Mahindra vehicle having temporary No. PB-02-AA/1124, driven by Santokh Singh s/o Sucha Singh, owner-cum-driver rashly and negligently, came from Amritsar side and crushed the claimant, resulting in the amputation of both the legs. The claimant alleged that at the time of the accident, he was working as driver with M/s Kartar Bus Services Company Ltd. Jalandhar owned by Dalbir Singh and was earning about Rs. 11,000/- per month. After the amputation of his both legs, he has been rendered permanently crippled and dependant. FAO No.2193 of 2011 -2- He has a daughter of 4 months and it has become very difficult from him to maintain his family. He claimed compensation of Rs. 20 lacs. The insurance company contested the petition on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding any valid driving licence to drive the vehicle at the time of accident and the alleged offending vehicle did not have any valid Registration Certificate, fitness and route permit at the time of the occurrence, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to make any payment. It is further pleaded that the offending vehicle was being used in contravention and against the terms and conditions of the Insurance policy. The driver-cum-owner was proceeded against ex-parte after publication of notice in the news paper for 27.08.2007. From the pleading of the parties the following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal. 1. Whether Iqbal Singh Claimant received inju on 25.06.2006 at about 10.30 pm in rash and negligent driving of respondent no.2 with vehicle bearing temporary no. PB- 02AA/1124? OPP 2. If issue no.1 is proved whether the claimant is entitled for compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding any valid driving license to drive the vehicle at the time of accident and the alleged offending vehicle did not have any valid R.C., fitness certificate and route permit at the time of occurrence? OPR FAO No.2193 of 2011 -3- 4. Whether the alleged offending vehicle was being used in contravention and against the terms and conditions of the insurance Policy? OPR 5. Relief. The learned tribunal awarded consolidated sum of Rs. 10 lacs to the claimant against the insurance company and driver-cum-owner holding them jointly and severely liable to pay the compensation along with simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filling of claim petition till its realization. The Insurance company has come up in this appeal challenging the impugned award. On 16.03.2011, this Court dismissed this appeal filed by the Insurance Company against the claimant by passing the following order: “ Present: Mr Gopal Mittal, Advocate, for the appellant. The counsel for the Insurance Company urges the issue of involvement of the vehicle, the Tribunal has dealt with that issue quite adequately and appropriately and I do not find any reason to differ with the view. The appeal by the Insurance Company against the claimant is dismissed. Issue notice only to the second respondent for 28.07.2011. 16.3.2011. Sd ( K. Kannan ), Judge.” There is no appeal or review petition filed by the Insurance Company, against this order dated 16.03.2011 of this Court. So this order FAO No.2193 of 2011 -4- has become final. Meaning thereby that findings on issues no.1 and 2 have become final. Learned counsel for the respondent driver cum owner states that he was wrongly proceeded against exparte whereas notice was not issued to him. The purported notice was issued to Nirmal Singh owner of Vehicle No. PB 0AA 9548, whereas Santokh Singh was the owner of Vehicle No.PB 02 AA 1124. Learned counsel submits that on the receipt of notice in this appeal, he came to know about the passing of the exparte award against him. The respondent filed an application before the Tribunal to set aside the impugned exparte award dated 04.01.2011, but the same was not entertained for want of record which stood requisitioned by this Court. Further contends that the driver cum owner held a valid driving licence. Learned counsel for the appellant is unable to rebut the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent at this stage. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the Tribunal carefully. From the perusal of the record it emerges that no notice was issued to the respondent in the claim petition, though he was served through publication of notice in the newspaper. No returned unserved notices are on record to establish that notices were ever sent to the driver cum owner. This FAO already stands dismissed against the claimant. Now the controversy remains as to whether the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation or not. Learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that this impugned award may be set aside with regard to findings on issues no.3 and 4 only. From the file it is proved that summons were never issued to the driver cum owner of the offending vehicle. So, there are sufficient grounds to set aside the exparte impugned award on findings on issues no.3 and 4. FAO No.2193 of 2011 -5- In view of the above, the present appeal is allowed, the impugned award dated 04.01.2011 is set aside qua findings on issues no.3 and 4 and the case is remitted back to the learned Tribunal for fresh adjudication after affording full opportunity to the Insurance Company and the driver-cum-owner to lead their evidence. From the Certificate Ex.A.2 dated 11.09.2010 issued by the office of Civil Surgeon, Gurdaspur it is made out that both the legs of the injured were amputated in the accident, on 25.06.2006. More than five years have passed, the victim has not received even a single penny. Keeping in view the same, the learned Tribunal shall make an endeavour to decide the claim petition afresh on issues no.3 and 4 only as expeditiously as possible, preferably within four months. The Insurance Company and the owner cum driver will pay Rs.25,000/- to the claimant in equal shares as costs of the litigation, which shall be the condition precedent. Records of the Tribunal be remitted back. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Tribunal on 1.12.2011. The Registry is directed to send copy of this judgment to respondent No.1. 28.09.2011 ( Jitendra Chauhan) atulsethi Judge