- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order dated 10.3.2010 by which the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barmer rejected the petitioner's application filed under Order 9 Rules 7 & 13 C.P.C.It appears from the facts of the case that the notice was served on the petitioner though by affixture when the petitioner's mother refused to accept the notice who was found in the house of the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner that he was residing in Gujarat and, therefore, he had no knowledge of the proceedings and notice has not been served upon him. However, in the application it is nowhere mentioned that the petitioner's mother was not residing in the house. The petitioner vaguely stated that he was residing in Gujarat. The service was effected on the petitioner in the manner referred above and to challenge the award dated 23.3.2001, the petitioner submitted application on 16.7.2009. The Tribunal considered the service of the petitioner sufficient and thereafter, held that no case is made out for setting aside the award of the year 2001. The petitioner who was served in accordance with law cannot be heard again in view of the vague pleadings as made in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
(2.) It is true that family has not been defined but the mother who was found in the house of the petitioner, is certainly member of petitioner's family. In view of the above reasons, on these technical grounds, the award cannot be set aside and the Tribunal rightly dismissed the application of the petitioner.
(3.) Consequently, this writ petition, having no merits, is hereby dismissed.;