A tribunal must issue fresh notice before proceeding ex parte when counsel pleads no instructions.

Desh Raj filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation for injuries sustained in an accident involving Mahindra Pick-Up No. HP-30-4041, owned by Durga Singh and insured with respondent No. 2.

The accident occurred on 21 January 2007 while Desh Raj, Durga Singh and the vehicle’s driver were travelling from Manali to Pangna; the driver died in the accident and an FIR was registered under Sections 279, 338 and 304-A IPC.

Durga Singh appeared through counsel, filed a reply and participated in cross-examination of the claimant.

After the claimant’s evidence was closed, the matter was listed for respondents’ evidence. On 9 January 2012, Durga Singh’s counsel stated that he had no instructions and produced a carbon copy of a letter allegedly sent to Durga Singh; the Tribunal consequently proceeded against him ex parte.

The Tribunal subsequently passed an ex parte award dated 30 March 2012, fastening liability upon Durga Singh.

Durga Singh claimed that he learnt of the award only on 5 November 2012 upon receiving execution summons and thereafter filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay.

The Tribunal dismissed both applications on 5 August 2019. Durga Singh challenged that order before the High Court under Order XLIII Rule 1(d) read with Section 104 CPC.

Whether the Tribunal was justified in proceeding ex parte against Durga Singh when his counsel reported “no instructions” without proof that the alleged letter had been dispatched or received by him?

Whether the delay in filing the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC was liable to be condoned in the interests of justice?

Whether the ex parte award dated 30 March 2012 ought to be set aside and the claim petition remanded for adjudication after granting Durga Singh an opportunity to lead evidence?

The Court applied Order IX Rule 13 CPC, under which an ex parte decree or order may be set aside where the defendant was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing, together with Section 5 of the Limitation Act, permitting condonation of delay for sufficient cause.

Although the complete CPC is not applicable to Motor Accident Claims Tribunal proceedings, such proceedings must comply with the principles of natural justice.

The Court relied on Tahil Ram Issardas Sadarangani v. Ramchand Issardas Sadarangani, AIR 1993 SC 1182, and Malkiat Singh v. Joginder Singh, (1998) 2 SCC 206, for the principle that where counsel reports “no instructions” or withdraws from representation, and the party is not present, the court should ordinarily issue a fresh notice of the actual date of hearing; a party who is not at fault should not suffer.

The Court further applied the principle that disputes should ordinarily be decided on merits rather than defeated by procedural technicalities.

The High Court found that Durga Singh had initially participated in the proceedings by engaging counsel, filing his reply and cross-examining the claimant, demonstrating that he was pursuing the matter diligently.

The counsel’s statement of “no instructions” was supported only by a carbon copy of an alleged letter. The record contained neither the address to which the letter was sent nor proof of its dispatch or receipt.

In these circumstances, the Tribunal ought to have issued a fresh notice to Durga Singh before proceeding ex parte, particularly because the proceedings concerned the owner’s liability for compensation and the matter was before a Claims Tribunal governed by natural justice.

The Court also considered Durga Singh’s asserted lack of legal literacy and his conduct in approaching the Tribunal after learning of the award, and held that the Tribunal had adopted an unduly technical approach in refusing to condone the delay and restore the proceedings.

The High Court set aside the Tribunal’s order dated 5 August 2019, condoned the delay, and allowed the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC.

Consequently, the ex parte award dated 30 March 2012 was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication after granting Durga Singh an opportunity to lead evidence.

Durga Singh was limited to two opportunities to adduce evidence and was directed to take steps for summoning witnesses within five days of appearing before the Tribunal.

The parties were directed to appear before the Tribunal on 3 September 2026, and the Tribunal was requested to decide the claim by 31 December 2026.