FAO No.3944 of 2006 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** FAO No.3944 of 2006 DATE OF DECISION: 10.03.2009 **** Gurdeep Singh . . . . Appellant VS. Jagbir Singh . . . . Respondent **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN **** Present: Mr.Yogesh Goel, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.S.N. Pillania, Advocate for respondent No.1. **** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J.(ORAL) This appeal is directed against order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jind (in short ‘the Tribunal’) dated 21.7.2006, whereby the application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code (in short ‘CPC’) by the appellant was dismissed. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that one Jagbir Singh filed a claim petition on 22.12.2001 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Tribunal, claiming compensation of Rs.29 lacs on the ground that on 31.7.2000 he along with his brother-in-law Balwan Singh resident of village Amaraali Khera, Tehsil Safidon were going to Jind on a truck FAO No.3944 of 2006 - 2 - bearing No.HR-55-1830. During the night time when they reached near Shahpur Bye-pass road Highway, they took meals at Sharma Dhaba. While Jagbir Singh (appellant) was standing near the side of the truck, suddenly Om parkash (respondent No.1), driver of the truck rashly and negligently drove the truck and crushed him as a result of which he suffered grievous injuries on his thigh and back side. The appellant was immediately moved to Sawai Man Singh Medical Hospital, Jaipur (Rajasthan) where he remain admitted. It was also alleged that the appellant/claimant is driver, aged 37/38 years and was earning Rs.10000/- per month. Besides he was getting Rs.4000/- P.M. as salary plus Rs.100/- daily as diet allowance but due to accident he has become permanently disabled. Therefore, compensation was sought. Notice was issued to the respondents which includes driver (appellant) but they failed to appear despite service. Therefore, ex parte proceedings were initiated against them. After taking into account ex parte evidence, the Tribunal, vide its order dated 15.1.2003 awarded compensation of Rs.2,20,000/- to the injured Jagbir Singh to be paid by both the respondents jointly and severally with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the institution of the petition till payment. On 15.9.2003, the appellant filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC for setting aside ex parte award dated 15.1.2003 alleging, inter alia, that the AD receipt attached in the file does not bear his signature/initial. He never received any registered AD or copy of the petition of the Tribunal and had never signed the alleged AD receipt. The Truck bearing No.HR-55-1830 involved in the accident is not owned by him rather the Truck was owned by M/s.Jhujhar Construction and Travel Pvt. FAO No.3944 of 2006 - 3 - Ltd, Ludhiana, a company registered with the Registrar of Companies, Jalandhar. It is also alleged in the application that the offending truck was insured on the date of accident and the liability to pay the compensation amount was of Insurance Company. Therefore, the appellant had no reason for not appearing in the case since the truck was insured. The application, however, was tried by the Tribunal and the following issues were framed: “1. Whether there are sufficient grounds to set aside the ex parte award dated 15.01.2003? OPA 2. Whether the application is not maintainable? OPR 3. Whether the application is time barred? OPR 4. Relief.” In this application, only the appellant led his evidence and no evidence has been led by the claimants. However, vide order dated 21.7.2006, the application for setting aside the ex parte order has been dismissed by the Tribunal. Mr.Yogesh Goyal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has vehemently contended that in a similar case (attached as Annexure P7) this Court had allowed the appeal and directed the Tribunal to decide the matter afresh after allowing the parties to lead their evidence by affording two opportunities to both the parties. Mr. S.N. Pillania, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/claimant submits that he has no objection insofar as the re-trial of the case is concerned but prays that the Tribunal may be directed to conclude the trial within a specified period. FAO No.3944 of 2006 - 4 - After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the impugned order deserves to be set aside. Since, the vehicle is insured; there is hardly any reason for the appellant not to appear before the trial court and to produce the Insurance policy in order to fasten the liability upon the Insurance Company. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to decide the matter afresh after associating the appellant also with the proceedings. However, it is made clear that only three effective opportunities shall be given to the appellant as well as to the respondent by the Tribunal. In view of the delay having been occurred in the entire proceedings and the request made by the learned counsel for the respondent, the Tribunal is directed to conclude the trial within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Both the parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 25.3.2009. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) FEBRUARY JUDGE vivek