P.S. Patwalia, J. - (1.) The present revision petition arises out of an order passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad on 29.3.2004 dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code for setting aside the award dated 1.4.2000.
(2.) At the outset, before the case could be taken for consideration, Shri Setia, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the principal amount of compensation has already been deposited with the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad. The states that the petitioner would have no objection if that amount is released to the complainant subject to adjustment as per the final order to be passed in the proceedings before the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially a notice was issued to his clients for 3rd November, 1998 however, they were not properly served for that date. He states that this fact is apparent from the order passed by the Tribunal itself on 3rd November, 1998 in the Motor Vehicle Accident case No. 32 of 1998 which is as under : "The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 not served properly. They be again served for 15.12.1998 on filing of PF, regd. Cover. W/S be also filed on behalf of respondent No. 3 along with the insurance particulars, on the date fixed." It is for the reason that petitioner was not served for 3rd November, 1998 that a fresh notice was issued for 15th December, 1998. The notice was served upon one Ms. Rubi. It is contended that the said lady was never an employee of petitioner-company. It is further contended that the petitioner-company remained closed for several years and no person was present at the factory premises. Although the submissions have been recorded by the learned Tribunal but have been repelled with the following observations : "The mere submission that report of process server is wrong, as the Company was lying closed for the last several years and no person was present at the factory premises, is apparently false as there is nothing to prove this fact. No documentary proof that the Company is lying closed for the last several years has been produced alongwith the application. It has not been denied that Rubi or Amar Bansal were not in the employment of respondent No. 2". It is, therefore, apparent that the petitioner did not lead any evidence in support of these contentions before the Tribunal.
(3.) Shri Setia contends that there is another illegality in the award. He submits that as the petitioner is neither owner nor the insurer could not be liable for payment of compensation. Shri Setia states that they should be granted an opportunity to lead evidence before the Tribunal in the first instance to support his contentions that Ms. Rubi was not his employee and the Company was lying closed for the last three years. He states that he would be satisfied if the impugned order dated 29.3.2004 rejecting his application under Order 9 Rule 13 is set aside and the matter is remanded back for a fresh decision on the application after giving him an opportunity to lead his evidence.;