Surya Kant, J. - (1.) This revision petition has been preferred against an order dated 21.1.2005 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rohtak vide which the petitioner's application under Order 9 Rule 3 CPC for setting aside the exparte proceedings as well as the consequential award passed against him in MACT case No.77 of 1997, titled as "Attar Singh v. Girdhar Lal & Ors.". An accident, which allegedly took place on 12.9.1996, led to filing of a claim petition by respondent No.1 before the MACT, Rohtak.
(2.) The petitioner, being the owner of the delinquent vehicle, was impleaded as respondent No.1 in the said claim petition. The petitioner was proceeded exparte vide order dated 12.11.1998 and thereafter an exparte award was made on 2.2.2001. It appears that the Insurance Co. was arrayed as respondent No.3, however, the Tribunal absolved it from the compensation liability and the payment of entire compensation amount was fastened upon the petitioner. It was thereafter that the petitioner moved an application for setting aside the exparte proceedings against him. The learned Tribunal framed issue No.1 to the effect that, "whether there are sufficient grounds for setting aside the exparte order dated 12.11.1998 and the award dated 2.2.2001 passed against the petitioner or not?". On an appreciation of the material on record, the Tribunal has disbelieved the petitioner's stand that after re-organization of District Rohtak and consequential carving out of District Jhajjar, his counsel had informed him that the claim petition would stand transferred to Jhajjar and a fresh notice will be received by him from the Tribunal at Jhajjar. The Tribunal, after observing that though a litigant should not suffer on account of mistake of his counsel, has held that if the petitioner was misled by the counsel, he has been negligent in pursuing the pending proceedings as it was his duty to verify the fate of the pending claim petition. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court.
(3.) On April 28, 2005, the petitioner took up a stand before this Court that out of the total amount of Rs.1,80,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioner, in order to show his bona fide, was ready and willing to pay a substantial part thereof to the claimant so that he may be heard on merits in the claim petition. It was also brought on record that a cheque of Rs.50,000/- had already been handed over by the petitioner to the counsel for the decree holder. While issuing notice of motion, this Court further directed the petitioner to pay 25% more amount of the compensation to the decree holder. With this condition, the execution proceedings were stayed.;