##PAGE1##

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20245/2025

Babulal Yadav S/o Shri Murlidhar Yadav

----Petitioner

Versus

Smt. Sarla Mathur W/o Shri Uma Shankar Mathur and Ors.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Jindal with

Mr. Anukram Singh

Mr. Shubham Arora

Mr. Shrey Bhardwaj

For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA

Order

28/01/2026

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner,

challenging the order dated 07.11.2025 passed by learned Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan II, whereby the

petitioner's application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC and

Section 5 of the Limitation Act for setting aside the ex-parte award

dated 04.06.2018 was rejected.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that notice of the

Claim Petition was not properly served upon the petitioner, yet the

ex-parte proceedings were drawn against him and thereafter,

ex-parte award was passed. He further submits that after getting

knowledge of the ex-parte award upon receiving the notice of the

execution petition, the petitioner filed an application under Order 9

Rule 13 of the CPC for setting aside the ex-parte award. However,

the same was arbitrarily rejected by the learned Tribunal.

(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 11:14:03 AM)

(Downloaded on 15/02/2026 at 08:28:37 AM)

(2 of 3) [CW-20245/2025]

3. He further submits that the liability to pay compensation

cannot be fasten upon the petitioner, the petitioner was not the

registered owner of the vehicle and Respondent No. 2 was the

registered owner of the vehicle. Therefore, in view of the explicit

language of Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,

defining the word ‘owner’, the petitioner can not be made liable to

pay compensation. For ready reference, Section 2 (30) is

reproduced as under:-

Section 2 (30) - "Owner" means a person in whose name a

motor vehicle stands registered, and where such person is a

minor, the guardian of such minor, and in relation to a motor

vehicle which is the subject of a hire-purchase agreement, or an

agreement of lease or an agreement of hypothecation, the person

in possession of the vehicle under that agreement."

4. To buttress his submissions, learned counsel placed reliance

on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

matter of Surendra Kumar Bhilawe Vs. The New India

Assurance Company

5. Heard.

6. Issue notice to the respondents.

7. Notices be filed in two sets and upon filing the same, one set

be sent by ordinary post and another by registered post,

returnable within four weeks.

8. In the meanwhile, the effect and operation of impugned

order dated 07.11.2025 and impugned award dated 04.06.2018

shall remain stayed, provided the petitioner deposits a sum of

Rs.3,00,000/-, with the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

Jaipur Metropolitan II, within a period of four weeks from today.

1 AIR 2020 Supreme Court 3149

(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 11:14:03 AM)

(Downloaded on 15/02/2026 at 08:28:37 AM)

(3 of 3) [CW-20245/2025]

9. On depositing the entire awarded amount, the learned Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan II is directed that the

said amount shall be kept in an FDR in any Nationalized Bank and

the same shall not be disbursed to the respondent without leave

of this Court.

(MANEESH SHARMA),J

RAHUL/SOURAV/24

(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 11:14:03 AM)

(Downloaded on 15/02/2026 at 08:28:37 AM)