1 2026:CGHC:11351 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MA No. 189 of 2025 Chhatrapal Shrivas S/o Radheshyam Shrivas Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Dataud, Tehsil Jaijaipur, District : Sakti, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Rakesh Kumar Chandra S/o Suresh Kumar Chandra Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Nandeli, Tahsil Jaijaipur, District : Sakti, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ghanshyam Sidar S/o Narsingh Sidar Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Nandeli, Tehsil Jaijaipur, District : Sakti, Chhattisgarh ..Respondents For Appellant :Mr. Manish Nigam, Advocate For Respondents :As per office report, refused to accept notice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , J Judgment on Board 10/03/2026 1. By the present appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) {sic Order 43 Rule 1(d)} of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2026.03.11 16:49:51 +0530 2 brevity ‘the CPC’), the appellant herein challenging the impugned order dated 18/07/2025 passed by the learned Second District Judge, Sakti, District Janjgir Champa C.G. in Misc. Civil Appeal No.28/2025, whereby the application filed by the appellant under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC to set aside the ex-parte award dated 14/12/2023 passed by the Second Additional Motor Accident Claim Tribunal in Motor Accident Claim Case No.5/2021 (Rakesh Kumar Chandra v Ghanshyam Sidar & Another) has been rejected. 2. (A) Facts of the case are that on 11/07/2019 at about 8:00 PM, the respondent No.1/claimant went with his friends Sanjay Kumar Chandra and Suraj Lohar to Nandeli Bus Stand, near the Aara Machine on Baradwar Main Road. At that time, the respondent No.2 Ghanshyam, while driving motorcycle bearing No. CG-11-AA-3458 in a rash and negligent manner, hit Rakesh and Sanjay, as a result of which, Rakesh sustained serious injuries to his left leg, left hand, and face. He first received primary treatment at Jaijaipur, then at Nayak Nursing Home, Champa, and later underwent surgery at Apollo Hospital, Bilaspur, where a metal rod was inserted. He remained bedridden for three months and later underwent surgery of the chest, hand, and 3 throat at Visakhapatnam (AP). In the meanwhile, the police registered Crime No. 135/19 against the vehicle driver Ghanshyam Sidar. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed against Ghanshyam Sidar (driver) and Chhatrapal Shrivas (vehicle owner) under Sections 279, 337, 338 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 146/196 of the Motor Vehicles Act. (B) At the time of the accident, Rakesh/injured was 19 years old and was studying ITI in COPA (Computer Operator and Programming Assistant) trade. He was earning ₹5,000 per month. However, due to the serious injuries to his leg and hand caused by the vehicle accident, he has suffered permanent disability, resulting in irreparable loss. 3. Since on the date of the accident, Ghanshyam Sidar was the driver of the offending vehicle and Chhatrapal Shrivas was its owner, the injured by filing claim case before the Second Additional Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Sakti and claimed ₹17,50,000/- towards compensation for the injuries/ permanent disability suffered by him in the motor vehicle accident. 4. The learned Tribunal after considering the material available on record, passed an ex-parte award dated 14.12.2023 4 against the appellant herein and was directed to pay Rs.5,68,975/- in favour of the respondent No.1/Rakesh Kumar Chandra within a period of thirty days from the date of award. 5. Against the said award, the appellant preferred a Civil suit before the learned Second District Judge, Sakti, by which, the trial Court observed that the appellant failed to establish sufficient cause for his non-appearance at the time of hearing before the Tribunal. Accordingly, the application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC was found to be devoid of merit and was rejected. Thus, this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant herein is the respondent No.2 before the Tribunal had filed Misc. Civil Suit No.28/2025 (Chhatrapal Shrivas Vs. Rakesh Kumar Chandra & anr) against them for recovery of Rs.5,68,975/- in which an ex-parte award was passed against the appellant herein on 14.12.2023. Learned counsel submits that the counsel who was appearing for the present appellant (respondent No.2 in the award), appeared before the Tribunal till 07/08/2023. Even, the appellant himself was appeared before the Tribunal on 21/12/2021. However, owing to outbreak of COVID 19 pandemic situation, there was some communication gap between the appellant as well 5 as his counsel, due to which, on 26/08/2023, counsel appearing for appellant remain absent before the Tribunal and learned Tribunal proceeded ex-parte against the appellant. Thereafter on 14/12/2023, Tribunal passed the award. Learned counsel further submitted that upon receiving notice of the execution proceedings from the process server, the appellant immediately filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC to set aside the ex-parte award dated 14/12/2023. However, the learned trial Court dismissed the said application on 18/07/2025. In support of his contentions, he produced certified copies of the relevant proceedings of the award, which are taken on record. 7. From perusal of order sheets, it appears that the counsel for the appellant herein had appeared before the Tribunal till 07/08/2023. However, on 26/08/2023, counsel did not appear, due to which, Tribunal proceeded ex-parte against the present appellant and passed the award dated 14/12/2023. The appellant has contended that due to the communication gap owing to outbreak of COVID 19 pandemic situation, the counsel as well as the appellant herein could not 6 remain present on the date fixed for hearing, due to which he was deprived of an opportunity to contest the suit. 8. It is well settled that while considering an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court should adopt a liberal approach so that a party is not deprived of an opportunity to contest the matter on merits. In the present case, the explanation offered by the appellant indicates that the absence was not deliberate but occurred due to the lapse on the part of his counsel. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rafiq & Anr. v. Munshilal & Anr. reported in (1981) AIR (SC) 1400 has held that a litigant should not be made to suffer for the fault, negligence or inaction of his counsel. Once a party has engaged an advocate and entrusted him with the conduct of the case, he is entitled to presume that the advocate will properly represent him before the Court, and the litigant cannot be expected to constantly monitor the proceedings or act as a watchdog over the advocate. Therefore, the innocent party should not be penalized for the default of his counsel. 10. In the considered opinion of this Court, if the impugned order is allowed to stand, the appellant would be deprived of an opportunity to contest the matter on merits which may result in 7 serious prejudice to him. The dispute between the parties deserves to be adjudicated after giving both sides an adequate opportunity of hearing. 11. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and upon perusal of the records, particularly the order sheets of the Tribunal, it transpires that the counsel for appellant herein had been regularly appearing before the Tribunal till 07/08/2023. However, on 26/08/2023, none appeared on behalf of respondent No.2, due to which the Tribunal proceeded ex-parte against the appellant and passed the award dated 14/12/2023. 12. Accordingly, this Court is satisfied that the appellant has shown sufficient cause for his non-appearance before the Tribunal on the said date. The impugned order dated 18.07.2025 passed by the learned Second District Judge, Sakti, District Janjgir Champa in Misc. Civil Suit No. 28/2025 is therefore not sustainable in law and deserves to be set aside. Consequently, the ex-parte award dated 14/12/2023 passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No.5/2021 is also set aside. The matter is remitted to the Claims Tribunal for adjudication of claim case afresh and decide the same in accordance with law and on its own merits after affording due opportunity of hearing to both 8 the parties. The parties are directed to appear before the concerned claim Tribunal on 15/04/2026. 13. In the result, the instant appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above, leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s). 14. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Gowri/ Amardeep