Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Raj Kumar v. Om Parkash and Ors. - CR-5685-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 4822 (27 July 2006)

C.R. No.5685 of 2005 1



C.R. No.5685 of 2005

Date of Decision:- 04.08.2006.

Raj Kumar ....Petitioner


Mr.Sandeep Chhabra, Advocate.


Om Parkash and ors. ....Respondents


Mr.Bhupinder Singh, Advocate.

Mr.Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate.




This revision petition has been directed against the order dated 15.10.2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panipat whereby an application moved by the petitioner to set aside the ex parte proceedings against him, has been dismissed.

Claimant-Respondent No.1 had filed a claim petition alleging inter alia that he suffered injuries in a vehicular accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of the truck bearing registration No.HR-46-A-6458, which was being driven by none-else than the petitioner herein, who had been impleaded as respondent No.1 in the claim petition.

As is apparent from the impugned order, the petitioner had put C.R. No.5685 of 2005 2

in appearance before the Tribunal and had been appearing through his counsel till 19.8.2004 but thereafter no one put in appearance on his behalf.

As such, he was directed to be proceeded against ex parte on 31.8.2004.

The petitioner moved an application for the recall of the aforesaid order on the ground that due to ailment he could not appear on the date fixed. Along with the application, a medical certificate had been appended. The Tribunal, however, has declined the said application on the ground that the same has been moved after a period of more than one year and as such no case to recall the ex parte order is made out.

Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court.

Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, claimant- respondent No.1 as well as learned counsel for the Insurance Company have put in appearance.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and having regard to the fact that the petitioner has earlier been participating in the proceedings before the Tribunal and the case has yet not been finally decided and as such no vested right of any kind has accrued in favour of either of the parties, it appears desirable and in the interest of justice to allow the petitioner to participate in the proceedings.

As far as causing of some delay by the petitioner is concerned, the respondent-claimant can be compensated with costs.

For the foregoing reasons, this petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 15.10.2005 is set aside and the petitioner is allowed to join the proceedings before the Tribunal. It is informed that the proceedings now stand concluded and the case is fixed for arguments.

In this view of the matter, the petitioner shall be given one C.R. No.5685 of 2005 3

opportunity only to produce his entire evidence, if any.

Thereafter, the Tribunal shall proceed and dispose of the petition in accordance with law. The aforesaid opportunity, however, shall be given to the petitioner subject to his payment of Rs.5,000 as costs to the respondent No.1-claimant.

The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 9.10.2006.

August 04, 2006 ( SURYA KANT )

poonam JUDGE


Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.