- (1.) IN the present case, facts giving rise to the present Civil Revision are that revisionist is owner of the Vehicle Truck No. UP78n/5274. On 4. 10. 1999 Om Prakash alias Virkha, who was driver of Truck No. UTP/4757 was coming from Jhansi to Kanpur and at 1. 00 in the mid night accident took place between Vehicle Truck No. UP78n/5274, which was rashly and negligently driven. In the accident Om Prakash alias Virkha received injury and he was shifted to hospital, where he died. Based on the said accident, claim petition was filed. In the said case owner of the truck, at no point of time, entered appearance, and on 9. 8. 2001 order was passed to proceed ex parte. Written statement was filed on behalf of the Insurance Company as well as owner of Vehicle Truck No. UP78n/5274. Written statement was filed on behalf of the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. also mentioning therein that Truck No. UTP/ 4757 was insured. On the basis of the evidence produced, wherein rashly and negligently driving was adduced, and on the basis of the same, on 19. 10. 2002 Motor Accident Claim Tribunal passed award mentioning therein that respondent nos. 1,2 and 3 singly and jointly are entitled to receive of the total awarded amount, and respondent no. 3 was asked to give of the total awarded amount to respondent nos. 1,2, and 3. It has been further mentioned that respondent nos. 4 and 5 singly and jointly are entitled to receive of the total amount and respondent no. 5 was asked to give of the total amount respondent nos. 4 and 5. After award has been passed, it was put for execution and thereafter, revisionist came up with case that award in question is liable to be withdrawn. Said application has been considered and has been rejected. At this juncture present civil revision has been filed.
(2.) SRI Rajendra Prasad, Advocate, learned counsel for the revisionist contended with vehemence that revisionist had no knowledge of on going proceeding of Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, in this background award in question in all eventuality is liable to be recalled and present civil revision be allowed.
(3.) AFTER respective arguments have been advanced, order impugned has been perused, which reflects that award was passed after hearing other co-respondents and as far as revisionist is concerned, qua him already order had been passed that matter should proceed ex parte. Revisionist has come out with the case that he acquired knowledge of the said proceeding on 20. 5. 2008, but at no point of time, it was disclosed by him the way and manner he acquired knowledge of the proceeding. Paragraph no. 4 of the application gives sketchy picture in respect of source of knowledge and it merely proceeds to mention that on 20. 5. 2008 revisionist acquired knowledge of the award and thereafter, he acquired knowledge of the aforementioned proceeding. It has also been sought to be contended that in the present case entire communication has been made at Kanpur address, whereas he is staying at Teekamgarh (Madhya Pradesh) and in this regard he could not enter appearance when the case has been called out. In the present case concerned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal have taken note of the fact that in the registration form address, which was mentioned was 18/576, Kaushalpuri, Kanpur and entire summons etc. had been sent on the said address, but at the point of time, any response has been filed. It has further been mentioned that publication was also got made in the newspaper in this regard. Once in the registration form, address was given and at no point of time, in the registration department, any information was sent by the revisionist that there is change of address, in this background once notice had been sent on the said address, even publication was made, then it cannot be said that there is no service of notice. Apart from this in the present case, Insurance Company also apprised the court that they had sent notice to the revisionist, but there was no response. In this background matter in question has concluded that there was service on the defendant /revisionist as per law and theory, which has been set up, is unbelievable and in this background had rejected application for recall of the order. This court refuses to interfere in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, inasmuch as there is no failure nor any miscarriage of justice. Consequently, present civil revision is dismissed.;