State Authority Can't Challenge Ex-Parte Award For Lack Of Hearing After Failing To Ensure Representation: Gauhati High Court
The Gauhati High Court has held that a State authority cannot assail an ex parte award for want of opportunity of hearing where it had notice of the proceedings, had engaged counsel and still failed to ensure its representation.
Justice Kaushik Goswami observed, “The fact that the appellant is a State authority cannot, by itself, absolve it of the responsibility of diligently pursuing proceedings of which it had due notice. Once the appellant had engaged counsel and its own office had been informed of the date fixed before the learned Tribunal, it was equally incumbent upon the appellant to take reasonable steps to ensure that its case was duly represented.”
The observation came in an appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the State of Arunachal Pradesh against the judgment and award dated August 22, 2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tinsukia.
The Tribunal had awarded Rs.15.85 lakh with interest at 6% per annum to the legal heirs of a man who died in a motor accident. The claimants also filed a cross-objection seeking enhancement of compensation.
The accident took place in March 2011 when an auto-rickshaw driven by the deceased was hit by a bus. He sustained grievous injuries and died the same day. His wife, two children and mother filed the claim petition. The State and the driver did not appear to contest the case and the proceedings continued ex parte. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence and documents produced by the claimants, found that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending bus and awarded compensation.
Before the High Court, the State submitted that although it had received notice and engaged an advocate, the advocate did not appear before the Tribunal and it was therefore deprived of an effective opportunity to contest the claim. The claimants submitted that the State had received notice and engaged counsel, but neither took any effective steps before the Tribunal.
They also sought enhancement on the ground that no amount had been awarded towards future prospects and that compensation under the conventional heads had not been determined in accordance with law.
The High Court noted that the case did not present a situation where the appellant was completely unaware of the proceedings or was deprived of an opportunity to contest the claim solely on account of its counsel.
It said the appellant had received notice, engaged an advocate and was aware of the date fixed before the Tribunal, yet took no further steps to ascertain the progress of the case or ensure its representation.
The Court said, “Despite the same, no steps were taken by the appellant to participate in the proceedings or to ensure its representation. The appellant also did not take any steps before the learned Tribunal for setting aside the ex parte proceedings. In such circumstances, the appellant cannot now contend that the award is vitiated for want of an opportunity of hearing.”
The Court further said that the claimants had not secured the award merely by reason of the appellant remaining absent. They had examined two witnesses and exhibited documents, and the Tribunal had recorded its findings regarding the accident, negligence and entitlement to compensation on the basis of the evidence led before it.
Accordingly, the Court held, “In the facts and circumstances noticed above, this Court finds no violation of the principles of natural justice warranting interference with the impugned judgment and award.”
On the cross-objection, the Court noted that the deceased was 35 years old and self-employed as an auto-rickshaw driver. It found no compelling reason to interfere with the Tribunal's assessment of his monthly income at Rs.10,000, but held that an addition of 40% towards future prospects was required. The loss of dependency was accordingly assessed at Rs.20.16 lakh.
The Court also reassessed the conventional heads and held the claimants entitled to Rs.15,000 towards funeral expenses, Rs.15,000 towards loss of estate and Rs.1.60 lakh towards loss of consortium for the wife, two children and mother of the deceased, taking the total compensation to Rs.22.06 lakh.
The State's appeal was dismissed and the claimants' cross-objection was allowed. The Court held, “The judgment and award dated 22.08.2014 passed by the learned Member, MACT, Tinsukia, in MAC Case No.61/2013, is modified to the extent that the claimants shall be entitled to compensation of Rs.22,06,000/- (Rupees twenty-two lakhs six thousand) only, instead of Rs.15,85,000/- awarded by the learned Tribunal.”
Case No.: MACApp./273/2015 with CO/1/2018
Case Title: The State of Arunachal Pradesh v. Smti. Rejina Sonowal & 3 Ors.
LL Citation: LiveLaw 2026 (Gau) 138