The claimant had filed a compensation petition before the Tribunal following an accident caused by a vehicle owned by the Union of India. Although the Union of India initially filed a written statement in response to the claim, it subsequently failed to appear during the hearings. Despite this absence, the Tribunal proceeded with the matter and passed an award in favour of the claimant. The Union of India then sought to set aside the award, arguing non-appearance due to the absence of its legal representative. However, the Tribunal rejected the application, finding that the Union had not established sufficient cause for its non-appearance.

The Union of India’s challenge in this appeal is based on the issue of whether an opponent, who remains absent despite being served with summons, can challenge the findings of an ex parte judgment.

When a party fails to appear in a case despite being duly served with notice, the law provides two remedies to challenge the ex parte judgment:

Application under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC): This rule allows a party to seek the setting aside of an ex parte award by showing sufficient cause for their non-appearance.

Substantive Appeal under Section 96 of the CPC: A party may file an appeal challenging the findings of the Tribunal on merits.

Both remedies can be pursued simultaneously, though the findings in one proceeding may influence the outcome of the other. However, as per the explanation to Rule 13, once a substantive appeal is decided on its merits, the application under Order IX, Rule 13 becomes non-maintainable.

Under Order 9, Rule 13 of the CPC, the court’s inquiry is limited to two main issues:

Whether the summons was properly served.

Whether there was sufficient cause for the non-appearance of the defendant when the matter was scheduled for hearing.

In this case, the Union of India contended that its lawyer had not appeared before the Tribunal, and this lack of representation led to the absence. The Tribunal, however, found that the Union had failed to establish a sufficient cause for its non-appearance. As per the Tribunal's order dated 11 August 1998, the application to set aside the award was rejected on the grounds that it had not been filed within the 30-day period prescribed under Article 123 of the Limitation Act.

The appeal primarily raised the issue of whether the findings made by the Tribunal regarding the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle, owned by the Union of India, were supported by sufficient evidence.

The Union of India argued that the Tribunal had not adequately considered the entries in the station diary dated 24 February 1988 from the Mata Ramabai Ambedkar Police Station. These entries contained references to the claimant being drunk at the time of the accident. The Union's counsel contended that the Tribunal should have given equal weight to this part of the station diary, as it was a public document and thus should be trusted.

Tribunal's Findings on Rash and Negligent Driving:

The station diary extract, though a public document, was merely corroborative evidence. The Tribunal had noted that the driver of the Union’s vehicle was negligent, but it did not accept the portion of the station diary that referred to the claimant’s intoxication. According to the Tribunal, while the details about the spot of the incident, the identity of the car, and the involvement of witnesses were corroborated by the station diary, there was no substantive evidence to support the claim that the injured party was drunk at the time of the accident. The Union of India did not cross-examine the claimant or present any additional evidence to substantiate its case. Furthermore, there was no blood test result to confirm the claimant's alleged intoxication, which further weakened the Union's case.

The claimant’s oral testimony was accepted by the Tribunal, which found that the driver of the car had been rash and negligent. In contrast, the Tribunal rejected the defense that the claimant’s drunkenness had contributed to the accident, primarily because the evidence provided by the Union of India was insufficient to substantiate this claim.

The Bombay High Court, after considering the arguments, concluded that the appeal had no merit. The Court found no reason to interfere with the Tribunal's findings regarding the rashness and negligence of the Union of India’s vehicle driver. The Court also reaffirmed the Tribunal's decision to reject the Union’s application to set aside the award, given that the Union had failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for its non-appearance at the hearings.

Thus, the appeal was dismissed with the following order:

The Union of India was directed to deposit the compensation amount within four weeks, if not already done.

The claimant was permitted to withdraw the awarded amount along with any accrued interest.

Each party was to bear its own costs.

This case underscores the importance of adhering to procedural requirements in legal proceedings and highlights the challenges faced by a party seeking to challenge an ex parte award. It also emphasizes the need for substantiating claims with evidence, particularly when relying on documents like the station diary, which may serve as corroborative but not conclusive evidence.