Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 939 (MAD)

Murugan v. Bala Vannanathan

2007-03-14

S.RAJESWARAN

body2007
Judgment :- The first respondent in M.C.O.P. No.784 of 2003 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (II Additional Sub Court), Tirunelveli is the Revision Petitioner before this Court. He is aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal made in I.A.No.759 of 2005 filed by him to set aside the award passed on 13.12.2004 by the Tribunal. 2. In I.A.759 of 2005, the Revision Petitioner stated that summons were not served on him in M.C.O.P.No.784 of 2003 filed by the first respondent herein and he came to know about the exparte award dated 13.12.2004 only on 26.08.2005 through a retired police officer claiming to be the representative of the Insurance Company, the second respondent herein. Immediately he filed I.A.No.759 of 2005 to set aside the exparte award dated 13.12.2004. His application was seriously opposed by the respondents 1,2 herein by filing counter affidavits. In the counter filed by the Insurance Company, it was specifically stated that they sent a notice dated 07.10.2003 by R.P.A.D to the Revision petitioner informing the pendency of M.C.O.P.784 of 2003 and asking him to produce all the documents relevant to the accident and his vehicle. The said notice dated 07.10.2003 was received by the Revision Petitioner on 10.10.2003 and the copy of notice dated 07.10.2003 and the acknowledgement card showing the receipt of the notice dated 10.10.2003 were filed before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by order dated 31.01.2006 dismissed the I.A.No.759 of 2005 and aggrieved by the same, the Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents1, 2. I have also gone through the documents and the Judgments referred to by them in support of their submissions. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that it is the case of non serving of summons on the Revision petitioner in M.C.O.P.No.784 of 2003 and therefore exparte award is to be set aside and the Revision petitioner should be given a chance to contest the claim petition on merits, especially, when a reimbursement award has been passed in favour of the Insurance Company giving a recovery right to recover the entire awarded amount from the Revision petitioner. 5. 5. Per Contra, both the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1,2 submitted that there is no bonafide on the part of the Revision Petitioner as he approached the Court only after knowing fully well that for a recovery right was granted to the Insurance Company. 6. I have considered the submissions carefully. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on AIR 2002 S.C.2370 (Sushi Kumar Sabharwal, Appellant V. Gurpreet Singh and others, Respondents.), to contend that when it is proved that the summons was not received by the Revision petitioner, the exparte award is to be necessarily set aside to enable the Revision petitioner to contest the matter on merits. 8. I am unable to accept the submissions of learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner. 9. Admittedly, the Insurance Company informing the Revision petitioner by notice dated 07.10.2003 that the M.C.O.P.No.784 of 2003 was filed by the claimants and the same was pending before the Tribunal and the notice dated 07.10.2003 was received by the Revision petitioner on 10.10.2003. Both the acknowledgement card and the copy of the notice dated 07.10.2003 were produced before the Tribunal to show that on 10.10.2003 itself the Revision petitioner knew about the claim petition filed in M.C.O.P.No.784 of 2003. This notice and acknowledgement card were neither disputed nor denied by the Revision Petitioner. In such circumstances, his statement in the affidavit filed in support of the I.A.No.759 of 2005 that he came to know about the M.C.O.P.No.784 of 2003 only on 26.08.2005 through a retired police officer is not at all correct and there is no bonafide on the part of Revision Petitioner. Further, the award was passed on 13.12.2004 itself and the Revision petitioner has straight way filed the I.A.No.759 of 2005 to set aside the exparte award without filing any petition to condone the delay. 10. In AIR 2002 SC 2370 (cited Supra) the Honble Supreme Court has dealt with a case in which the date of hearing was posted on 23.02.1993 and the process server went to the shop of the defendant on 22.02.1993 and as the defendant refused to receive the summons and the plaint, an endorsement was made by the process server stating that the summons were returned to the Court because of refusal. Only in that context, the Supreme Court rendered a decision that too after satisfying with the summons was not served on the defendant. Only in that context, the Supreme Court rendered a decision that too after satisfying with the summons was not served on the defendant. The present case is totally different and the Revision petitioner had the knowledge of the pending M.C.O.P.No.784 of 2003 even on 10.10.2003 itself and therefore, the above decision is also not helpful to the Revision petitioner. Hence I find no merits in the Civil Revision Petition to interfere with the order of the Tribunal made in I.A.759 of 2005 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 11. In the result, this Civil Revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P. is also dismissed.