FAO No.3079/2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.3079/2010 Date of decision: 10.08.2011 M/s Sun Technologies ....................Appellant v. Mitro Devi and another .....................Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jaswant Singh Present: Mr.Gunjan Mehta,Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Ajay Mehra,Advocate for Mr.Ashit Malik,Advocate for respondents Jaswant Singh.J.(Oral) Appellant firm-M/s Sun Technologies is a sole proprietorship concern owned by Mr.Parmod Virmani. It has filed the present appeal against the ex parte award dated 26.7.2008 passed by learned MACT, Karnal whereby the appellant firm has been fastened with the liability to pay a total compensation of Rs.3,16,500/- alongwith interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realisation to the dependants of deceased Naresh Kumar. Briefly noticed the facts of the case are that one Naresh Kumar was employed in the appellant firm, which is engaged in the business of computer parts. On 7.9.2007 at 11.30 in the night he met FAO No.3079/2010 2 with a motor vehicular accident. At that time he was driving a motorcycle bearing registration no. HR-05R-1535, owned by the proprietor of the appellant firm. One Sandeep Kumar was travelling on the said motorcycle as a pillion rider. It was alleged that when they reached near Western Yamuna Canal Bridge on Kaithal Road, an unknown truck came from behind at a high speed in rash and negligent manner and hit the motorcycle being driven by Naresh Kumar. Both Naresh and Sandeep fell down and sustained serious, multiple and grieves injuries. FIR No.563 dated 8.9.2007 under Section 279,337,304-A IPC was also registered in this regard. Later on Naresh Kumar succumbed to his injuries. Consequent thereupon, his parents filed a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 (for short the Act) alleging therein that the accident in question had occurred out of use of motorcycle owned by Parmod Virmani. It was further alleged that deceased Naresh Kumar was employed with the appellant firm as a Sales Man and earning Rs.3000/- per month. Notice of the petition was issued to the appellant. Despite service none appeared on behalf of the appellant and hence it was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 15.1.2008. The claimants led ex parte evidence. The learned Tribunal on the basis of material available on record awarded compensation, as noticed above. Hence the present appeal. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the FAO No.3079/2010 3 impugned ex parte award is liable to be set aside on the ground that the appellant was never served and instead one Narender had impersonated himself as proprietor of the appellant firm. It is further alleged that a false report on registered AD has been prepared with the connivance of the process server. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I find no force in the submissions made on behalf of the appellant. It is not disputed that after the passing of the impugned award and during the pendency of the execution petition, the appellant firm had filed a Civil Revision bearing No.3250 of 2010, wherein similar pleas were raised in order to seek setting aside of the ex parte order dated 15.1.2008 as well as ex parte award dated 26.7.2008. The said revision petition was dismissed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.5.2010. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to show that after the dismissal of the revision petition, the appellant had challenged the said order dated 17.5.2010. Thus the ex parte order and award have attained finality. In this view of the matter, in my opinion no fault can be found with the impugned award which is based on un- rebutted evidence led by the claimants/respondents. For the reasons stated above,finding no merit in this appeal the same is hereby dismissed. 10.08.2011 (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge