Judgment:
Sham Sunder, J.
1. This revision-petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for setting aside the order dated 26.04.2008, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rewari, vide which, it dismissed the application, under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, filed by the revision-petitioners, for setting aside the ex-parte award, dated 12.11.2002, has been filed by the revision-petitioners.
2. The claim petition, arising out of motor vehicle accident, bearing MACT case No. 68 of 19.3.1998/7.6.2000, titled as 'Kunj Bihari and Anr. v. Gajraj alias Sahabu and Anr. was decided exparte, on 12.11.2002, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. In that petition, vide the exparte award dated 12.11.2002, compensation, in the sum of Rs. 98,000/-, was awarded, alongwith interest, to Kunj Bihari etc. (now respondents).
3. An application, was moved by the petitioners, for setting aside the ex-parte award, referred to above, on the averments, that they were arrayed as respondents, in MACT case No. 68 of 1998, in the capacity of owner and driver of vehicle bearing No. RJ-14G-5389, but they were never summoned, in that claim petition, at the address, given in the title of the petition by registered post, or through process server of the Court. It was further stated by them, that they never engaged Sh. A.K. Gulati, as Counsel, to defend their case. It was further stated that had there been a valid and proper service of the respondents, they would have come present, in the Court, and participated in the proceedings. It was further stated that they would have furnished the driving licence of respondent No. 1, registration certificate of the offending vehicle, and insurance particulars of the vehicle, with a view to implead proper parties, in the petition, for the just and fair decision of the petition, without, prejudice to either party. It was further stated that since the petitioners, who were respondents, in the claim petition, were never served, nor they acquired knowledge of the pendency thereof, ex-parte award was wrongly passed. It was former stated that they acquired knowledge of the aforesaid award, on receipt of a notice, in the execution proceedings, and ultimately, they came to file the petition, under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
4. The respondents/decree-holders, put in appearance, and filed reply, wherein, they opposed the application, stating therein, that Sh. A.K. Gulati, Advocate, had put in appearance, on behalf of the petitioners, who were respondents in the main claim petition, and filed power of attorney, duly executed by them. It was further stated that, later on, he did not appear, and the respondents (now petitioners) were proceeded against exparte. It was further stated that it was not that the respondents (now petitioners), were never summoned, nor anybody put in appearance, on their behalf. It was further stated that there was no sufficient cause for setting aside the ex-parte award.
5. On the application, under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the following issues, were struck:
i) Whether the order and decree dated 12.11.2002 is liable to be set aside as alleged? OPP
ii) Whether the petitioner-respondent is estopped from his own act and conduct from moving the application as alleged, if so its effect? OPR
iii) Whether the application for setting aside the order of exparte is not maintainable as alleged? OPR
iv) Relief.
6. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, on record, die application, was dismissed.
7. Feeling aggrieved, the instant revision-petition, has been filed, by the revision-petitioners.
8. I have heard the Counsel for the revision-petitioners, and have gone through the record of the case, carefully.
9. The Counsel for the revision-petitioners submitted that the revision-petitioners, were never served, as respondents, in the main claim petition, by any mode. He further submitted that Sh. A.K. Gulati, Advocate, was never engaged by them, in the claim petition. It was further submitted by him, that a criminal case was registered, against petition No. 1, under Sections 279, 338, and 427 of the Indian Penal Code. Initially, Sh. A.K. Gulati, Advocate, was engaged to contest that case, but there was some dispute, with regard to his fee. So they (revision-petitioners), engaged Sh. H.K. Yadav, Advocate, to contest that case. It was further submitted that even petitioner No. 1, was acquitted, in that criminal case. It was further submitted by him that, as such, the revision-petitioners, were wrongly proceeded against ex-parte, and the ex-parte award, was wrongly passed, against them. It was further submitted that they came to know of the ex-parte award, on receipt of notice, in the execution. It was further submitted that the vehicle, in question, at the relevant time, was insured with the United India Insurance Company Limited. He further submitted that, thus, there was sufficient cause for setting aside the ex-parte award, but the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, was wrong, in disposing the application.
10. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, I used by the Counsel for the revision-petitioners, in my considered opinion, the revision-petition deserves to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter. No doubt, it was the case of the revision-petitioners, that they never engaged Sh. A.K. Gulati, Advocate, in the claim petition, in which, the ex-parte award, was passed, against them, yet, this plea of the revision-petitioners, was refuted by Sh. A.K. Gulati, Advocate, when he appeared as RW1. He, in clear-cut terms, stated that he was engaged by the revision-petitioners, who were respondents, in the claim petition, and that they had executed Vakalatnama exhibit RW1/A, in his favour, duly authorizing him, to appear, in that petition. There was no reason, on the part of Sh. A.K. Gulati, Advocate, to appear, on behalf of the respondents, in the main claim petition, who are now revision-petitioners, unless he had been engaged and authorized by the concerned party, or its duly authorized person. The case of the revision-petitioners, was also not that the address, given in the claim petition, was not their correct address. Sh. A.K. Gulati, Advocate, RW1, also stated that the revision-petitioners, in that case, approached him with summons, in the claim petition, which they had received. It is further evident from the order of the Court below, that the zimni order, dated 26.08.1998 of MACT case No. 68 of 1998, titled as 'Kunj Bihari and Anr. v. Gajraj and Ors. showed that the summons were issued for the service of the respondents (now revision-petitioners), but the same were not received back served or otherwise. The question, whether the summons were not received back served or otherwise, was hardly of any consequence, especially when, Sh. A.K. Gulati, Advocate, on behalf of the respondents (revision-petitioners), put in appearance, on 17.05.1999, and placed power of attorney, executed in his favour, by them, on the file of the Court. It was not the case of the revision-petitioners, that Sh. A.K. Gulati, Advocate, colluded with the petitioners (now respondents), or their Counsel. The Court below, was, thus, right in holding, that the plea of the revision-petitioners, that they never came to know of the claim petition, during the pendency thereof, as they were never served, was completely falsified by Sh. A.K. Gulati, Advocate, who put in appearance, on their behalf, 4n that claim petition, and filed Vakalatnama. The Court below, was, thus, right in holding that there was no sufficient cause for setting aside the ex-parte award, dated 12.11.2002, passed in MACT No. 68 of 19.03.1998/07.06.2000. The order rendered by the Court below, is based, on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point. The same does not suffer from any illegality, material irregularity, or perversity, warranting the interference of this Court, in its revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The submission of the Counsel for the revision-petitioners, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
11. For the reasons recorded above, the revision-petition, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same, is dismissed.