Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Manjit Kaur & Ors vs Gurtej Singh & Anr on 9 September, 2024

Author: Pankaj Jain

Bench: Pankaj Jain

CR-4818-2018 (O&M) ss:
112 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

CR-4818-2018 (O&M)
Date of decision : 09.09.2024

ManjitKaur& ors, Petitioners
versus

Gurtej Singh & amr, ae Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN

REK

Present :- Mr. Liagat Ali, Advocate
for the petitioners.

Mr. Kulwant Singh, Advocate
for respondent No.1.

3K OK 3k

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

1 Present revision petition has been filed challenging the order dated 27.04.2018 (Annexure P-5) passed by District Judge, Ludhiana vide which the Court has allowed the application filed by respondent No.1 for setting aside ex-parte award dated 27.02.2015 passed by the MACT, Ludhiana.

2 Petitioners filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation on account of death of Jaswinder Singh s/o Darshan Singh-petitioner No.2 in a motor vehicular accident alleged to have been caused due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1-Gurtej Singh. Gurtej Singh was proceeded ex-parte which finally led to passing of award dated 27.02.2015 awarding compensation of Rs.6,68,000/- to the claimants along with interest @ 6% per annum on the awarded amount from the date of filing of the POOJA SHARMA 2024.09.13 18:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. POOJA SHARMA 2024.09.13 18:03 CR-4818-2018 (O&M) 12:

petition till final realization of the amount. However, the claim petition qua claimants No.2 & 3 was dismissed.

3 Claimants filed application for execution of order dated 27.02.2015. Judgment debtor i.e. respondent No.1-Gurtej Singh was summoned. He filed application for staying ex-parte award claiming that he was never served in the main proceedings and thus his absence was neither intentional nor willful.

4 District Judge, Ludhiana framed following issues :-

"1. Whether there are sufficient ground to set aside exparte award dated 27.02.2015? OPA 2 whether the application is not maintainable? OPR 3 Relief."

5 Tribunal held that perusal of file reveals that as per postal receipt Ex.R1, notice was sent to Gurtej Singh on 26.07.2014 and it was presumed that Gurtej Singh was duly served and was proceeded ex-parte after lapse of 30 days. It was held that from perusal of postal receipt Ex.R1, it was not clear whether the summon was sent to applicant or not and further that name of the village of the applicant-respondent No.1 was not mentioned on the receipt and no evidence came on record to prove service on respondent No.1-Gurtej Singh. Accordingly, District Judge, Ludhiana set aside ex-parte award subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- costs. 6 Learned counsel for the petitioners while assailing the impugned order passed by the District Judge, Ludhiana has referred to the statement of Gurtej Singh in the proceedings in the application seeking setting aside of ex-parte award. He further submits that Gurtej I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. POOJA SHARMA 2024.09.13 18:03 CR-4818-2018 (O&M) 3:

Singh himself admitted that he received summons in the main claim petition and also engaged counsel for appearing in the same on his behalf. Further he admitted the factum of accident and thus Tribunal, erred in setting aside ex-parte award in favour of the petitioners.

7 Per contra counsel for respondent No.1 has reiterated that from the postal receipt Ex.R1, it is evident that name of the village of respondent No.1 was not mentioned and thus presumption ought not have been raised with respect to the service upon respondent No.1. He further submits that in later part of his testimony, Gurtej Singh has specifically denied the suggestion given by counsel for the petitioners. He submits that the statement has to be read as a whole and thus it cannot be held that Gurtej Singh admitted service on him in the main claim petition. 8 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case.

9 On 03.09.2024 it was put to the counsel for respondent No.1 that in case he is ready to deposit the decreetal amount and secure the interest of the claimants, Tribunal can be directed to decide the claim afresh within a period of six months.

10 Today on instructions from his client, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has expressed inability on part of respondent-Gurtej Singh to do so. 11 The issue involved is whether respondent No.1-Gurtej Singh was served in the main claim petition or not. He was ordered to be served through registered post. The address of respondent No.1 in I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CR-4818-2018 (O&M) 4s:

the memo of parties appended to the award as well as to the present petition reads as under :-

under :-

Memo of Parties

1. Gurtej Singh S/o Piara Singh R/o Village Kothe Pate Mohobat, P.S. Charreek, Tehsil and Distt. Moga (Driver and owner of the offending vehicle) Award

1. Gurtej Singh s/o Sh.Piara Singh r/o Village Kothe Pate Mohobat, P.S. Charreek, Tehsil and district Moga (Driver and owner of the offending vehicle) The address as mentioned in the postal receipt reads as Gurtej Singh, Chareek Moga H.O. PIN : 142001 Thus it is evident that though name of the village of respondent No.1 was not mentioned yet name of the police station under which the village falls was Chareek Tehsil & District Moga.

Apart from that Gurtej Singh while appearing in witness box unambiguously and clearly admitted as under :-

"It is correct that on the receipt Ex.RI, my name and address is mentioned. After receiving the summons in the main claim petition bearing no.20 dated 28.4.2014, I had engaged counsel for appearing the same in the main claim petition. I do not know whether my counsel had filed written statement in the main claim petition on my behalf or not. It is correct that with my vehicle namely Scorpio accident of Jaswinder Singh had taken place. It is place correct that the said accident had taken place near ECO green nursery, opposite petrol pump, Gurthali road, Doraha on 09.5.2013. It is correct that FIR no.56 dated CR-4818-2018 (O&M) 5s:

10.5.2013, under sections 279, 427, 304-A IPC has been registered against me and the same is pending in the court of Sh.Neeraj Singla, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Payal. It is correct that in the said accident, Jaswinder Singh had died."

15 In view of the aforesaid admission this Court finds that District Judge indeed erred in setting aside ex-parte award which was passed after due service upon respondent No.1. From the statement of Gurtej Singh it is evident that he deliberately opted to evade the process of law. Thus the District Judge ought not have set aside the award passed in favour of the claimants, more so keeping in view the fact that Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficiary legislature enacted to provide compensation to destitutes who have lost their loved ones. Claimant here is an elderly lady having lost her young son. Thus, ordering de novo trial of claim petition despite the fact that respondent in claim petition opted not to contest despite having been served, will be interpreting rules of procedure in precedence over and to defeat the substantive object behind the legislation.

16 Resultantly, the present revision petition is allowed. (PANKAJ JAIN ) JUDGE 09.09.2024 Pooja sharma-I Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No POOJA SHARMA 2024.09.13 18:03 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.