Pushpinder Pal Singh vs Dr. Dinesh Sachdeva and Others

V.K. Jhanji, J.—This revision has been directed against the order of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirsa, dated 30-8-1991, dismissing the application for setting aside the ex parte order dated 7-6-1990.

Respondent No. 1, Dr. Dinesh Sachdeva filed a Claim petition for the grant of Rs. 5 lacs as compensation, u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''), on account of injuries and permanent disablement caused to him in an accident which took place due to rash and negligent driving of truck No. HNH-9390 being driven by Nirmal Singh, driver, respondent No. 1 in the Claim petition, The said truck was stated to be owned by the petitioner, i.e. respondent No. 2 in the Claim petition. Nirmal Singh, driver, appeared in the Court on 21-3-1990, but on the adjourned date, i.e. 6-4-1990, did not appear and therefore, he was ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte. The petitioner was served through publication for 7-6-90, and on his non-appearance on the said date, he was also proceeded against ex-parte. On 184-1991, the petitioner filed an application for the setting aside of ex-parte order dated 7-6-1990 on the ground that he never received any notice either through the process of the court or by post. It was also stated in the application that the petitioner never received any issue of newspaper in which publication for his appearance was made through postal certificate, and therefore, he never came to know about the pendency of Claim petition.

This application was contested by the claimants. The learned Tribunal after giving an opportunity of leading evidence to the parties, dismissed the application of the petitioner, as the Tribunal was of the view that the petitioner was ordered to be served through process of the Court as well as through registered post for 21-3-1990, but these summons were not received back, served or unserved, Therefore, the petitioner was ordered to be served through publication. The Tribunal also took into consideration the postal certificate issued by the Postal authorities placed on record, vide which, issue of newspaper ''Bharat Desh Hamara, Patiala'' in which publication was made, was sent to the petitioner. Therefore, the Tribunal on finding that the petitioner was duly served dismissed the application. This order is being impugned by the petitioner in the present revision petition.

No one appears on behalf of the claimants.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner was never served in the case, nor he came to know about the publication made in the newspaper, therefore, the ex-parte proceedings ordered against him are liable to be set aside. When it was pointed to Mr. G.S. Bawa, learned Counsel for the petitioner, that the effort of the petitioner is to delay the decision of Claim petition, he stated that the petitioner is not interested in recalling any of the witnesses already examined by the claimants, for the purpose of cross-examination. He further submits that he should only be allowed to file a written statement and tender the following documents, before the Tribunal,

(i) Registration certificate of truck;

(ii) Driving licence;

(iii) Insurance policy. and

(iv) Fitness certificate of the truck.

He also submits that apart from filing the written statement and tendering the aforesaid documents, he does not want to say anything else in his statement.

Taking into consideration the statement of learned Counsel for the petitioner, the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirsa, dated 30-8-1991, is set aside, and the revision petition is allowed. However, it is made clear that the petitioner shall not be allowed to summon any of the witnesses already examined by the Court, for the purpose of cross examination. Only one opportunity shall be given to the petitioner to file the written statement and to examine himself only for the purpose of tendering the documents indicated in the earlier part of this order. In case, the petitioner makes a request to the Tribunal to prove these documents by calling some formal witnesses, then dasti summons shall be given to the petitioner for their service. Counsel for the petitioner undertakes that it shall be the responsibility of the petitioner to serve the formal witnesses, if any, failing which, his evidence will be deemed to have been closed.

The petitioner is directed to appear through his counsel before the Tribunal on 10.2.1992.