Civil Revision No.5761 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.5761 of 2011 Date of Decision: 21.9.2011 Gurvinder Singh .....Petitioner Versus Daljit Kaur and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.Amit Dhawan, Advocate for the petitioner. M ehinder S ingh S ullar ,J. (Oral) The matrix of the facts, which requires to be noticed, for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant revision petition and emanating from the record is, that Daljit Kaur, unfortunate, widow, Kanwaljit Kaur minor daughter, Harnam Singh minor son, of Sukhbir Singh and Harbans Kaur wife of Balkar Singh respondent- claimants (for brevity “the claimants”) filed the claim petition for compensation, on account of death of Sukhbir Singh against Jatinder Singh proforma respondent No.5, Gurvinder Singh (petitioner) and Insurance Company under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”). 2. As the petitioner did not appear to contest the claim petition, therefore, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short “the MACT”), Kapurthala ordered the ex parte proceedings against him. 3. Having completed all the codal formalities, the ex parte award dated 1.12.2010 was passed in favour of the claimants by the MACT. Since the driver, owner and Insurance Company of the offending vehicle did not deposit the awarded amount, so, the claimants filed the execution petition. Instead of Civil Revision No.5761 of 2011 -2- complying, the petitioner filed an application (Annexure P2), for setting aside the ex parte award on the ground that neither he was served, nor appeared to contest the claim petition, nor authorized any Advocate to appear on his behalf. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the petitioner filed the application for setting aside the indicated ex parte award, in the manner depicted hereinabove. 4. The claimants refuted the prayer of the petitioner and filed the reply (Annexure P3), raising certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the application, concealment of material facts, estoppel, cause of action and locus standi of the petitioner. According to the claimants that the petitioner was duly served and as he did not appear to contest the claim petition despite service, therefore, the ex parte proceedings were rightly ordered against him. It will not be out of place to mention here that the claimants have stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the application and prayed for its dismissal. 5. The MACT dismissed the application (Annexure P2), by virtue of impugned order dated 8.8.2011 (Annexure P4). 6. Aggrieved by the decision of the MACT, the petitioner preferred the present revision petition, invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable assistance and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the present revision petition in this respect. 8. Ex facie, the argument of learned counsel that since the petitioner was not duly served, so, the ex parte award is liable to be set aside, sans merit. 9. As is evident from the record that the MACT, after perusing the original file of the case, came to the definite conclusion that the petitioner was Civil Revision No.5761 of 2011 -3- duly served, but he has intentionally avoided the appearance to delay the proceedings of the case. Moreover, the interim zimni orders reproduced by the petitioner in the grounds of revision, would go to show that he was duly served and Sh.Rajiv Kohli, Advocate filed the power of attorney on his behalf on 13.12.2008 and the case was adjourned to 25.2.2009 for filing the written statement. On 30.3.2009, the MACT passed the following order:- “Photocopy of RC, DL filed on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2. Service is complete. Adjourned to 4.5.09 for filing written statement.” 10. Again, the written statement was not filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the case was adjourned to 24.7.2009 for filing the written statement on their behalf, subject to cost of ` 1000/-, by way of order dated 4.5.2009. Thereafter, the petitioner did not appear to contest the claim. Again, summons were issued to him and ultimately he did not appear despite service and the following order was passed by the MACT on 3.3.2010:- “Respondent No.2 not appeared despite service through publication. Proceeded ex-parte. Adjourned for filing written statement on behalf of respondent No.1 on 13.3.2010.” 11. Thus, it would be seen that the petitioner was duly served and he did not appear to contest the claim petition despite service twice. Therefore, it cannot possibly be saith that he was not duly served, as urged on his behalf. In these circumstances, the poor and unfortunate claimants cannot possibly be again burdened with heavy litigation cost and miseries on account of cleverness of the petitioner in this relevant connection. 12. Moreover, the MACT has rightly negatived the claim of the petitioner and recorded the cogent grounds in the impugned order. Such order, containing the valid reasons, cannot legally be set aside, in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction of this Court, as envisaged under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, unless the same is perverse and without jurisdiction. No such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned Civil Revision No.5761 of 2011 -4- counsel for the petitioner in the impugned order (Annexure P4). 13. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the counsel for the petitioner. 14. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant petition is dismissed in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 21.9.2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) AS JUDGE