Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 260 (TRI)

Sri Joy Sankar Saha v. Prema Devi

2014-07-04

S.TALAPATRA

body2014
JUDGMENT S. Talapatra, J. 1. Heard Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. D.C. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This is an appeal, now under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the order dated 26.08.2011, delivered in Civil Misc. No. 181/2010 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala, Court No. 1, which was filed for setting aside the ex parte judgment and award dated 27.09.2006 in T.S. (MAC)692/2002. The said petition, being Civil Misc. No. 181/2010 was rejected by the Tribunal vide order dated 26.08.2011. 3. Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that in the claim petition, being T.S. (MAC)692/2002, the address of the owner of the offending vehicle i.e. the appellant herein, was wrongly described. But, he has admitted that, that address was used by the appellant while he got his vehicle bearing No. TRL-6029 (Truck) registered with the Transport Department. Later on, the appellant had shifted his residence from Agartala to Udaipur. As such, no notice from the Tribunal was served upon the appellant. When the execution proceeding for realising the award under Section 174 of the Motor Vehicles Act, was set in motion at the instance of the claimants, the appellant gathered the knowledge of existence of a claim proceeding, being T.S. (MAC)692/2002. Only thereafter, the appellant had filed the petition, being Civil Misc. No. 181/2010, for setting aside the ex parte order dated 27.09.2006, on assigning the reasons which had hindered him from taking part in the proceeding. But, by the order dated 26.08.2011, the Tribunal has rejected the said prayer for setting aside the ex parte order dated 27.09.2006. 4. Mr. D.C. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the claimant-respondents has submitted that the claimants cannot be faulted with for any deficiency in the address of the appellant, who was the opposite party in the claim petition. The change in the address was not reported to the registering authority of the vehicles, which the appellant was so bound by law. Mr. Roy, however, has fairly submitted that if the claim is re-tried after affording the opposite party i.e. the appellant herein, opportunity of filing the written objection and the documents, if any, with a direction for disposing the entire claim proceeding within a short time frame, he will have no objection. 5. Mr. Roy, however, has fairly submitted that if the claim is re-tried after affording the opposite party i.e. the appellant herein, opportunity of filing the written objection and the documents, if any, with a direction for disposing the entire claim proceeding within a short time frame, he will have no objection. 5. Having regard to the entire circumstances as narrated by the parties, this court is of the opinion that the impugned judgment and award dated 27.09.2006, delivered in T.S. (MAC) No. 692/2002 and the order dated 26.08.2011, delivered in Civil Misc. No. 181/2010 be recalled and set aside, not on merit, but for affording an opportunity to the appellant to participate in the proceeding in the tribunal. This court is satisfied that the appellant was hindered by the causes which were beyond his control, in participating the said proceeding as he did not receive proper notice from the Tribunal. As such, the claim proceeding is remitted back to the Tribunal with a direction to complete the entire proceeding within a period of 8(eight) months from the date when the records would be received from this court. However, no further notice would be issued to the appellant, the opposite party in T.S. (MAC) No. 692/2002 and the appellant shall file the written objection within 3(three) weeks from today with all relevant documents. It is made clear that no further opportunity would be granted to the appellant, the opposite party for the said purpose in the proceeding. 6. With this observation and direction, this appeal stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.