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. 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 the order impugned, it becomes imperative to refer to the applications being application for condonation of delay accompanied to the application seeking setting aside of the award filed by the appellant herein before the Tribunal for setting aside the award dated 10.07.2023. The averments in the applications being relevant and significant for the purpose of determination of the instant appeal, as such, are extracted in extenso and reproduced hereunder:- An application for condonation of delay in filing the above mentioned application. 1. That the impugned ex-parte award dt. 10-07-2013 passed by this Hon’ble Tribunal in files no. 399/Claim titled “Pushpa Devi & Ors. vs. Sita Ram & Ors. and no. 400/claim titled “Reeta Devi & Ors. vs. Sita Ram & Ors. 1. That the impugned ex-parte award dt. 10-07-2013 passed by this Hon’ble Tribunal in files no. 399/Claim titled “Pushpa Devi & Ors. vs. Sita Ram & Ors. and no. 400/claim titled “Reeta Devi & Ors. vs. Sita Ram & Ors. is factually and legally incorrect, as such is not liable to sustain in the eyes of law as such the award is liable to be set aside. 2. That the fact is that the applicant never received any summons from this Hon’ble Tribunal from where the applicant could gather the knowledge of pendency of the above mentioned claim petitions. The applicant in fact was never served upon and he had no knowledge of the claim petitions being filed by the petitioners and ultimately the applicant was proceeded ex-parte and an ex-parte award came to be passed against the applicant herein. 3. That the fact is that the applicant had sold tractor no. JK02AJ-2206 to Sh. Kuldeep Raj S/o. Shonku Ram R/o Nadhi Wala Tehsil Akhnoor Distt. Jammu in the year 2006 and the applicant was no more the owner of the said vehicle. The said Kuldeep Raj undertook that he shall be liable for all civil, criminal and accidental liabilities after the purchase of the vehicle. The alleged accident took place on 19-10-2009 and at that time the applicant was neither the owner nor the vehicle was in his possession but Kuldeep Raj was the owner of the vehicle and it was in his possession and the said vehicle was and is being plied by him. The accident took place when Kuldeep Raj was the owner of the vehicle and not the applicant. However, the applicant could not reflect this fact in the claim petitions since the applicant never received any summons and he had no knowledge about the pendency of the claim petitions. The applicant had no record in black and white to proe his statement that he has sold the vehicle to Kuldeep Raj and requested him to give in writing, so that the applicant herein is able to prove before this Hon’ble Tribunal that the applicant is not the owner of the said vehicle but Kuldeep Raj was and is the owner of the vehicle and he is liable for all the liabilities arising out of the use of the vehicle. The applicant was able to procure/get an affidavit duly attested before the 1st Class Judicial Magistrate on 11th July 2014 to the effect that Kuldeep Raj was and is the owner of vehicle/tractor bearing no: JK-02AJ-2206 and he is the only person who is liable for all the liabilities w.e.f. the year 2006. 4. That the applicant thereafter immediately after getting this record contacted Rajesh Kumar and Puneet Kohli Advocates for causing appearance before the Tribunal and further for moving the present application before this Hon’ble Tribunal and after examining the record and the present application has been moved without any delay. 5. That no prejudice shall be caused to the non-applicants if the delay is condoned & the impugned ex-parte award dt. 10-07-2013 passed by this Hon’ble Tribunal in files no. 399/claim titled “Pushpa Devi & Ors. vs. Sita Ram & Ors.” and no. 400/claim titled “Reeta Devi & Ors. vs. Sita Ram & Ors.” be set aside and the applicant be given chance to contest the case on its merits. 6. That there was neither any willful intention nor deliberate attempt on the part of the applicant in not filing the application for setting aside ex-parte award immediately after passing of the same.” “Application for setting aside ex-parte award dt. 10-07-2013 in File No. 399/claim. 1. That ex-parte award dated 10-7-2013 passed by this Hon’ble Court Tribunal in files no. 399/Claims titled “Pushpa Devi & Ors. vs. Sita Ram & Ors.” and no. 400/claims titled “Reeta Devi & Ors. vs. Sita Ram & Ors.”, which came to be decided by way of a common award titled “Pushpa Devi & Ors. vs. Sita Ram & Ors.” is factually and legally incorrect and is not liable to sustain in the eyes of law. The execution petition is pending disposal before this Hon’ble tribunal and same is fixed for 16-07-2014. 2. That the perusal of the file reveals that the above said claim petitions to be filed by the legal heirs of deceased Rattan Lal and Kuldeep Raj who were travelling in Tractor bearing no. JK02-AJ-2206 and the applicant is shown as one of the respondents/owner of the vehicle/tractor. 3. That the fact is that the applicant had never received any summons from this Hon’ble Tribunal from where the applicant could gather the knowledge of pendency of the above mentioned claim petitions. JK02-AJ-2206 and the applicant is shown as one of the respondents/owner of the vehicle/tractor. 3. That the fact is that the applicant had never received any summons from this Hon’ble Tribunal from where the applicant could gather the knowledge of pendency of the above mentioned claim petitions. The applicant in fact was never served upon and he had no knowledge of the claim petitions having been filed by the petitioners and ultimately the applicant was proceeded set ex-parte and award came to be passed as against the applicant herein. 4. That the fact is that the applicant had sold tractor no. JK02AJ-2206 to Sh. Kuldeep Raj S/o. Shonku Ram R/o. Nadhi Wala Tehsil Akhnoor Distt. Jammu in the year 2006 and the applicant was no more the owner of the said vehicle. The said Kuldeep Raj undertook that he shall be liable for all civil, criminal and accidental liabilities after the purchase of the vehicle. The alleged accident took place on 19-10-2009 and at that time the applicant was neither the owner nor the vehicle was in his possession but Kuldeep Raj was the owner of the vehicle and it was in his possession and the said vehicle was and is being plied by him. The accident took place when Kuldeep Raj was the owner of the vehicle and not the applicant. However, the applicant could not reflect this fact in the claim petitions since the applicant never received any summons and he had no knowledge about the pendency of the claim petitions. 5. That the applicant came to the know of the same when he was served upon in the execution petitions through the police agencies by way of warrants and prior to that the applicant had no knowledge of the claim petitions or the execution petitions. 6. That immediately after getting the knowledge the applicant contacted Sh. Rajesh Kumar Advocate for necessary legal action and moving the applications required under law. 7. That the cordial principles of law is that no one can be condemned unheard. The principle of natural justice is not only important for the purpose of adjudication of the rights of the parties but is of such a nature that violation of such right negates the very administration of justice. 7. That the cordial principles of law is that no one can be condemned unheard. The principle of natural justice is not only important for the purpose of adjudication of the rights of the parties but is of such a nature that violation of such right negates the very administration of justice. It is further submitted that the legislation in its wisdom enacted the procedure under law i.e. Code of Civil Procedure which has been applicable to all the civil proceedings and in the present case since the applicant was not served upon and had not received any summons and the technical presumption resulting into passing of ex-parte proceedings is bad and deserves to be set aside. The applicant craves the kind indulgence of this Hon’ble Tribunal to set aside the same and decide the petitions on merits. 8. That no prejudice shall be caused to the non-applicants if the ex-parte award dated 10-7-2013 passed by this Hon’ble Tribunal in files no. 399/Claim titled “Pushpa Devi & Ors. vs. Sita Ram & Ors. and no. 400/claim titled “Reeta Devi & Ors. vs. Sita Ram & Ors., passed as against the applicant be set aside and the applicant be given opportunity to defend the case on merits. It is further submitted that the applicant after getting the knowledge contacted his counsel who perused the record and filed the present application without any delay. Assuming for the sake of arguments but denied vehemently that if there is any delay on part of the applicant in filing the present application, the applicant has filed separate application for condonation of delay explaining the delay in filing the application and there is sufficient cause for condoning the same.” 9. Perusal of the record reveals that the Tribunal during the course of consideration of the aforesaid applications had proceeded to decide both applications together having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, inasmuch as, the contentions urged therein the said applications and consequently, in terms of the impugned order decided both the applications. 10. Perusal of the record reveals that the Tribunal during the course of consideration of the aforesaid applications had proceeded to decide both applications together having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, inasmuch as, the contentions urged therein the said applications and consequently, in terms of the impugned order decided both the applications. 10. As is evident from the application for condonation of delay as also the application for setting-aside the award supra, the solitary ground urged by the appellant herein before the Tribunal is that he never received any summon from the Tribunal from where he could gather the knowledge of the pendency of the claim petitions and that he, in fact, was never served had no knowledge about the claim petitions filed by the claimants and that on account of non-receipt of summons of the claim petitions from the Tribunal, as also having no knowledge of the same, he could not bring into the notice of the Tribunal that the offending tractor in fact have had been sold by him to one Sh. Kuldeep Raj in the year 2006 before the date of accident dated 19.10.2009, on which date he was having neither possession of the offending vehicle nor was the owner/ of the same. The appellant in the application claims to have got the knowledge of the claim petitions and award passed thereon after he came to be served in the execution petition through police agency by way of warrants whereafter he states to have contacted his counsel, namely, Rajesh Kumar consequently got the aforesaid applications filed before the Tribunal. 11. Perusal of the record would reveal that to support the pleas raised by the appellant herein in the aforesaid applications, before the Tribunal, he appeared as his own witness besides examining five witnesses, namely, Kamla Devi, Anil Kumar, Romesh Chander, Rattan Lal & Tara Chand. 12. 11. Perusal of the record would reveal that to support the pleas raised by the appellant herein in the aforesaid applications, before the Tribunal, he appeared as his own witness besides examining five witnesses, namely, Kamla Devi, Anil Kumar, Romesh Chander, Rattan Lal & Tara Chand. 12. Record also tends to show that the appellant herein being respondent 1 in the claim petitions in response to the notice issued by the Tribunal, in fact, has appeared along with the driver of the offending vehicle, namely, Lok Nath Sharma on 18.01.2010 and even affixed his signature on the margin of the original file of the claim petitions before the Tribunal as a token of admission thereof which facts even also stand acknowledged by the appellant before the Tribunal during the course of consideration of the aforesaid applications while appearing as his own witness. In presence of the aforesaid admitted facts, the plea raised by the appellant herein in the applications (supra) that he was never summoned by the Tribunal in the claim petitions and that he had no knowledge about the said claim petitions and that he got the knowledge of the claim petitions/award only when the said award was sought to be executed against him by issuance of a warrant through police agency. In presence of the aforesaid undisputed facts, the said contentions of the appellant herein cannot, but, said to be factually incorrect and grossly misconceived. The further plea of the appellant herein that he had sold the offending tractor in the year 2006 to one Sh. Kuldeep Raj prior to the accident dated 19.10.2009 and that he could not bring the said fact into the notice of the Tribunal during the course of adjudication of the claim petitions as he had never received any summons from the Tribunal and had no knowledge of the said claim petition in view of aforesaid indisputable facts pales into insignificance. 13. A deeper examination of the impugned order shows that the Tribunal having regard to the aforesaid admitted facts having noticed and taken cognizance of the same in the impugned order, cannot be said to have committed any error, illegality or perversity in the impugned order. 14. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order does not call for any interference. 15. Resultantly, the appeal fails and is dismissed.