Civil Revision No.1276 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.1276 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: March 4, 2011 Gurnam Singh .....Petitioner v. Smt.Ranjit Kaur and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.L.M.Gulati, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.5172-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. C.M.No.5173-CII of 2011 Requests for placing on record Annexures P1 to P3. The same are taken on record subject to all just exceptions. Application stands disposed of accordingly. Civil Revision No.1276 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 17.12.2000, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter to be referred as `the Tribunal'), Tarn Taran, vide which application filed by petitioner for setting aside the ex parte award dated 2.4.2009 has been rejected. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned Tribunal, Tarn Taran. Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are Civil Revision No.1276 of 2011(O&M) -2- that a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, (hereinafter to be referred as `the Act') was filed by respondent no.1 against present petitioner and respondent nos.2 and 3 for compensation on account of injuries suffered by her in the accident. Notice of petition was given to the present petitioner and other respondents. Counsel appeared for present petitioner and present respondent no.3. Two-three dates were taken for filing reply. However, lateron none appeared for petitioner and present respondent no.3 and nor written statement was filed. Hence, they were proceeded ex parte vide order dated 4.3.2008. Suit was contested by respondent-Insurance Company by filing an application under Section 170 of the Act for permission to contest on all the grounds available to present petitioner and present respondent no.3. Petition was decided in favour of the claimants and ex parte award against present petitioner and present respondent no.3 was passed vide award dated 2.4.2009. An application was filed by present petitioner for setting aside the ex parte proceedings and the ex parte award passed against him and in favour of respondent no.1-Smt.Ranjit Kaur. The said application was dismissed by learned Tribunal, Tarn Taran vide impugned order, by observing as under:- “ File would show that the applicant and his co- respondent no.1 were appearing since 13.9.2005 at Amritsar and continued to appear till 16.3.2007 at Amritsar. Cases were transferred to Tarn Taran on 18.5.2007. Sh.Sanjay Mahajan, Advocate, who was appearing on behalf of the applicant and his co-respondent appeared at Tarn Taran in these cases on 13.11.2007 and 22.1.2008. Thereafter, on 4.3.2008, none appeared on their behalf and they were proceeded against ex parte and ultimately, the award in question was passed on 2.4.2009.” It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petition was transferred from Amritsar to Tarn Taran and however, no notice of transfer was given to petitioner. He also contended that counsel for the petitioner did not appear before Tribunal at Tarn Taran and hence, petitioner was wrongly proceeded ex parte. It is further contended that he came to know about the main award having been passed against him when Civil Revision No.1276 of 2011(O&M) -3- he received warrants of attachment in the execution petition. However, on perusal of various zimni orders passed by learned Tribunal, plea taken by learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. The case was transferred from Amritsar to Tarn Taran and was taken up by learned Additional District Judge, Tarn Taran on 18.5.2007 and the same was further adjourned to 17.8.2007 and thereafter adjourned to 13.11.2007. On 13.11.2007, learned Tribunal, Tarn Taran, passed the following order:- “Present: Shri A.K.Sharma, Advocate for the claimant. Shri Sanjiv Mahajan, Advocate for defendant Nos.1 and 2. ...... Shri R.R.Arora, Advocate filed power of attorney on behalf of respondent No.3. Service complete for written statement to come up on 22.1.2008.” On 22.1.2008, learned Tribunal, Tarn Taran passed the following order:- “Present: Shri A.K.Sharma, Advocate for the claimant. Shri Sanjiv Mahajan, Advocate for defendants no.1 and 2. Shri R.R.Arora, Advocate for respondent no.3. Written statement not filed. For written statement on behalf of the respondents, to come up on 4.3.2008.” On 4.3.2008, following order was passed: “Present: Shri A.K.Sharma, Advocate for the claimant. Shri R.R.Arora, Advocate for respondent no.3. None for the respondents no.1 and 2. None has come present on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 2 despite calling the case for several times since morning and after lunch. Hence, they, i.e., respondent nos.1 and 2 are proceeded against ex parte. Now to come up on 10.4.2008 for filing of reply be the respondent no.3.” Thereafter an application under Section 170 of the Act was filed by respondent -Insurance Company, which was allowed and however, Civil Revision No.1276 of 2011(O&M) -4- thereafter none appeared for the present petitioner and present respondent no.3. Argument of counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted as the same is not in accordance with the various orders passed by learned Tribunal, Tarn Taran. Petitioner remained silent for such a long time. He did not try to enquire about the fate of the petition filed against him. Hence, his plea cannot be accepted that he came to know about the order being passed against him when he received warrants of attachment in the execution proceedings. Hence, in view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned Tribunal in passing the impugned order and that a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby, warranting interference by this Court. Moreover, law is well settled in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others 2004(1) RCR (Civil) 147 that mere error of fact or law cannot be corrected in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction by this Court. This Court can interfere only when the error is manifest and apparent on the face of proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law and that a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby. Hence, the present revision petition is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. 4.3.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge