FAO-3077-2010 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:147446

FAO-3078-2010 (O&M)

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

I.

FAO-3077-2010 (O&M)

Reserved on 2.11.2023

Date of Decision: 21.11.2023

Tasvir Sharma

....Appellant

VERSUS

Krishan Kumar and others

....Respondents

II.

FAO-3078-2010 (O&M)

Tasvir Sharma

....Appellant

VERSUS

Parven and others

....Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARAMJIT SINGH

Argued by : Mr. J.P.Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant.

Mr. Lalit Garg, Advocate, for respondent No.3.

*******

KARAMJIT SINGH, J.

This common judgment will dispose of above noted two

appeals filed against order dated 5.5.2010 whereby the applications filed by

appellant Tasvir Sharma under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside ex

parte composite award dated 21.10.2008 passed by MACT, Bhiwani (in

short, “the Tribunal”) in MACT Petition No.82 of 2006 and 83 of 2006,

have been dismissed.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that Krishan Kumar who sustained

injuries in a motor vehicle accident which took place on 24.2.2006 filed

MACT No.82 of 2006 against Sunil (driver), Tasvir Sharma (owner) and

insurer of offending vehicle No.HR-46B-4612. In the similar manner,

PARITOSH KUMAR

2023.11.22 10:56

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this Judicial

Record/Decree/Document

FAO-3077-2010 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:147446

FAO-3078-2010 (O&M)

2

another injured namely Parven filed separate claim petition being MACT

No.83 of 2006. In both claim petitions, appellant-Tasvir Sharma (Owner)

and Sunil (driver) of the offending vehicle were proceeded against ex parte.

3.

The claim petitions were contested by the insurance company.

The Tribunal vide composite award dated 21.10.2008 allowed both the

claim petitions. In the claim petition filed by Krishan Kumar, compensation

worth ` 1,05,859/- was granted and in the claim petition filed by Praven,

compensation worth ` 83,640/- was granted and both owner and driver

were held jointly and severally liable to pay amount of compensation to the

aforesaid claimants. However, the insurance company was exonerated. After

passing of the aforesaid composite award dated 21.10.2008, appellant-

Tasvir Sharma filed separate applications under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for

setting aside of ex parte proceedings against him in both the claim petitions.

Both the applications were contested by the claimants namely Krishan

Kumar and Praven.

4.

After hearing both the parties, the Tribunal dismissed both the

applications vide separate orders dated 5.5.2010.

5.

The appellant being aggrieved by the said orders, have filed

both these appeals.

6.

I have heard the counsel for the parties.

7.

Counsel for the appellant has, inter alia, submitted that the

summons with regard to both the claim petitions were never served upon the

appellant; that proper address of the appellant was not given in the claim

petition and as such, neither the appellant nor any other member of his

family ever received summons of the claim petitions. It has been further

PARITOSH KUMAR

2023.11.22 10:56

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this Judicial

Record/Decree/Document

FAO-3077-2010 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:147446

FAO-3078-2010 (O&M)

3

contended that the appellant was having no knowledge with regard to

passing of ex parte award dated 21.10.2008 and he came to know about the

same for the first time on 10.7.2009 when the process server of the Court

concerned served warrants of attachment relating to his truck and

immediately thereafter, the appellant filed applications under Order 9 Rule

13 CPC for setting aside of the composite award dated 21.10.2008.

8.

Counsel for the appellant, while assailing the impugned orders

dated 5.5.2010, has further contended that there is s