Ashok Kumar Vs. Smt.Durgan Bai and ors - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1051184
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided OnFeb-13-2013
AppellantAshok Kumar
RespondentSmt.Durgan Bai and ors
Excerpt:
c.r. no.470/2003 -1- high court of madhya pradesh jabalpur single bench: hon’ble shri justice a.k. shrivastava c.r. no.470/2003 applicant ashok kumar s/o shri tarachand sahni, occupation – business r/o 537, clark town, nagpur (mh) versus respondents 1 smt. durgan bai wd/o late babulal claimant patle, r/o village mohbarra, tehsil keolari, dist. seoni (m.p.) non-applicant 2. united india insurance co. ltd. no.3 through its divisional manager, wright town, jabalpur non-applicant 3. roop narayan s/o ram bilash no.1 tiwari, r/o village champa, tehsil umred, dist. nagpur (mh) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- shri n.k. salunke, advocate for the applicant. none for the respondents though served. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- order { 13–02-2013 } this revision application has been filed at the instance of the owner of the truck who was arrayed as non- applicant no.2 in the claim case no.86/1997.2. the claim case was submitted by claimant durgan bai widow of babulal patle who died in the motor accident. the said claim was registered as mcc no.86/1997 arraying the present applicant as non-applicant no.2, driver roop narayan c.r. no.470/2003 -2- as non-applicant no.1 and united india insurance co. ltd., insurer, as non-applicant no.3. despite the applicant appeared before the learned claims tribunal personally on 5.8.1998 and thereafter he also appeared on 31.8.1998 but later on he did not remain present on the further dates as a result of which he was proceeded ex parte. the learned claims tribunal on 30.9.2000 passed award exonerating the insurer and after fastening the liability upon the driver and owner, meaning thereby present applicant and roop narayan, passed an award of rs.1,44,900/- along with 12% interest as mentioned in the award. thereafter, a time barred application under order 9 rule 13 cpc was filed by present applicant which was registered as misc. motor accident claim case no.33/2001 and by the impugned order dated 31.1.2003 the said application has been rejected and in this manner this revision application has been filed before this court.3. i have heard learned counsel for the applicant at length and i am of the view that this revision deserves to be dismissed.4. although several grounds have been raised to set aside the ex parte award passed against the applicant who is the owner of the offending vehicle but this fact cannot be marginalised and blinked away that applicant himself was present on 5.8.1998 as well as on the next date before the learned motor accident claims tribunal but later on he did not c.r. no.470/2003 -3- appear and therefore, no sufficient ground is made out to set aside the ex parte award. apart from this, application to set aside the ex parte award was filed on 19.11.2001, although the award was passed by learned motor accident claims tribunal on 30.9.2000 and thus, the application to set aside the ex parte award was barred by more than one year. the learned tribunal has found that no sufficient ground is made out to condone the delay and therefore, dismissed the application.5. according to me, since the applicant himself appeared personally twice in the claims tribunal when the main claim case was pending and later on he did not appear, therefore, it cannot be said that sufficient ground is made out to condone the delay particularly when the application to set aside the ex parte award is also barred by more than one year.6. i have gone through the reasonings assigned by learned tribunal dismissing the application of applicant under order 9 rule 13 cpc and i find that reasons so assigned do not require any interference.7. resultantly, this revision fails and is hereby dismissed. no order as to costs. (a.k. shrivastava) judge sach
Judgment:

C.R. No.470/2003 -1- HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH: Hon’ble Shri Justice A.K. Shrivastava C.R. No.470/2003 APPLICANT Ashok Kumar s/o Shri Tarachand Sahni, Occupation – Business R/o 537, Clark Town, Nagpur (MH) Versus RESPONDENTS 1 Smt. Durgan Bai wd/o Late Babulal CLAIMANT Patle, R/o village Mohbarra, Tehsil Keolari, Dist. Seoni (M.P.) Non-applicant 2. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. No.3 Through its Divisional Manager, Wright Town, Jabalpur Non-applicant 3. Roop Narayan s/o Ram Bilash No.1 Tiwari, R/o village Champa, Tehsil Umred, Dist. Nagpur (MH) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri N.K. Salunke, Advocate for the applicant. None for the respondents though served. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER

{ 13–02-2013 } This revision application has been filed at the instance of the owner of the truck who was arrayed as non- applicant No.2 in the claim case No.86/1997.

2. The claim case was submitted by claimant Durgan Bai widow of Babulal Patle who died in the motor accident. The said claim was registered as MCC No.86/1997 arraying the present applicant as non-applicant No.2, driver Roop Narayan C.R. No.470/2003 -2- as non-applicant No.1 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd., insurer, as non-applicant No.3. Despite the applicant appeared before the learned Claims Tribunal personally on 5.8.1998 and thereafter he also appeared on 31.8.1998 but later on he did not remain present on the further dates as a result of which he was proceeded ex parte. The learned Claims Tribunal on 30.9.2000 passed award exonerating the insurer and after fastening the liability upon the driver and owner, meaning thereby present applicant and Roop Narayan, passed an award of Rs.1,44,900/- along with 12% interest as mentioned in the award. Thereafter, a time barred application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was filed by present applicant which was registered as Misc. Motor Accident Claim Case No.33/2001 and by the impugned order dated 31.1.2003 the said application has been rejected and in this manner this revision application has been filed before this Court.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant at length and I am of the view that this revision deserves to be dismissed.

4. Although several grounds have been raised to set aside the ex parte award passed against the applicant who is the owner of the offending vehicle but this fact cannot be marginalised and blinked away that applicant himself was present on 5.8.1998 as well as on the next date before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal but later on he did not C.R. No.470/2003 -3- appear and therefore, no sufficient ground is made out to set aside the ex parte award. Apart from this, application to set aside the ex parte award was filed on 19.11.2001, although the award was passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on 30.9.2000 and thus, the application to set aside the ex parte award was barred by more than one year. The learned Tribunal has found that no sufficient ground is made out to condone the delay and therefore, dismissed the application.

5. According to me, since the applicant himself appeared personally twice in the Claims Tribunal when the main claim case was pending and later on he did not appear, therefore, it cannot be said that sufficient ground is made out to condone the delay particularly when the application to set aside the ex parte award is also barred by more than one year.

6. I have gone through the reasonings assigned by learned Tribunal dismissing the application of applicant under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC and I find that reasons so assigned do not require any interference.

7. Resultantly, this revision fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. (A.K. SHRIVASTAVA) JUDGE sach