The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of factual evidence and the lack of grounds for interference with a tribunal's decision.

ORDER :

1. In the instant appeal order dated 13.08.2018 (for short “the impugned order”) passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jammu (for short “the Tribunal”) is thrown challenge to by the appellant herein.

2. Facts emanating from the record would reveal that two claim petitions filed, under and in terms of the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Act of 1988”) being claim petition No. 399/Claim & claim petition No. 400/Claim, before the Tribunal on 12.12.2009 by the predecessors-in-interest of the respondents 1 to 13 herein claiming therein compensation for the death of one Sh. Rattan Lal & Sh. Kuldeep Raj (both deceased) having occurred on 19.10.2009 while travelling in a tractor bearing registration No. JK02AJ-2206 within the jurisdiction of the Police Station, Akhnoor.

3. In the aforesaid claim petitions wherein the present appellant besides respondent 15 herein have had been impleaded as party respondent 1 being the owner of the tractor did not chose to appear or to contest the claim petitions and was set ex-parte whereas respondent 15 herein and respondent 3 in the claim petitions did contest the claim petitions and filed a written response thereto.

4. The Tribunal upon the pleadings of the contesting parties framed the following four issues:-

1. Whether an accident occurred on 19.10.2009 at Nalli Tehsil Akhnoor due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle No. JK02AJ-2206 in the hands of erring driver as a result of which deceased Rattan Lal and Kuldeep Raj suffered fatal injuries? (OPP)

2. If Issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative whether petitioners are entitled to compensation in each case; if so how much and from whom? (OPP)

3. Whether driver of offending vehicle at the time of accident was not holding valid and effective driving license and drove the vehicle in violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy? (OPR-3)

4. Relief. (O.P. Parties)

5. The claimants proved the issues onus whereof was upon them, whereas the Insurance Company as well produced its witness and thereafter the Tribunal upon adjudication of the claim petitions passed a common award dated 10.07.2023 whereby the claimants came to be awarded compensation to be payable by the owner-respondent 1/ appellant herein minus the amount of Rs.50,000/- paid initially by the Insurance Company – respondent 15 herein to the claimants.

6. The owner of the offending tractor/appellant herein filed an application for setting aside the award dated 10.07.2023 accompanied with an application for condonation of delay on 16.07.2014. The said applications came to be rejected by the Tribunal in terms of the impugned order dated 13.08.2018.

7. The appellant has questioned the impugned award in the instant appeal, inter alia, on the grounds that the same has been passed by the Tribunal overlooking the provisions of Order 10 Sub-rule (2) of C.P.C, in that, the appellant had informed the Tribunal during the course of proceedings of the claim petitions that he had sold the offending vehicle prior to the date of accident and instead of impleading the new owner as a party in the claim petition, the Tribunal proceeded with the claim petitions without impleading the said owner and that the Tribunal while considering the application filed by the appellant for setting aside the ex-parte award, was under an obligation to adjudicate as to whether there was sufficient cause for non-appearance of the appellant herein before the Tribunal during the course of proceedings in the claim petitions and that the counsel who had filed the application for setting aside the award before the Tribunal did not attach seven more witness affidavits sworn by different person in support of the application and that the Tribunal also did not consider the other evidence which corroborated the plea of the appellant herein that his counsel, in fact, was negligent in the matter.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. Before proceeding to test the validity of