JASPREET SINGH, J. - (1.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents no.1 and 2.
(2.) The office report dated 11.12.2013 indicates that the notice on the respondent no.4 is sufficient, but the notice on the respondent no.3 could not be served on account of incomplete address. The fact remains that the respondent no.3 is the owner of the jeep which was also involved in the accident and as per the facts discussed in the body of this judgment, it would reveal that mere absence of the respondent no.3 is not going to affect or hamper the hearing of this appeal on merits.
(3.) The Court with the consent of the parties has heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents no.1 and 2.;