DALIP SINGH, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been filed against the award dated 25.11.1992 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur, Distt. Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'The Tribunal') in Claim Petition No. 2/1992 filed by the claimant respondent Nos. 1 to 8 whereby the application under Order 9 Rule 13, C.P.C. filed by the appellant who was the owner of the offending vehicle bearing Registration No. RJL 4848 was dismissed and the learned Tribunal declined to set aside the ex parte award.
(2.) THE submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the appellant was alleged to be the owner of the offending vehicle (Truck) RJL 4848. It is alleged that in fact, he was not the registered owner thereof. He submits that the service of the summon was also not effected upon the appellant and the learned Tribunal has erred on passing the award ex parte against the appellant. Ave perused the record and the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has given the cogent reasons for refusing to set aside the ex parte award. The learned Tribunal has also found that on the basis of the evidence (Ex. 6) that the appellant Ramkaran moved an application in the Court of the Magistrate for giving truck on 'Supurdaginama' to him during the pendency of the trial of the case of driver Chhatar Singh for offence under Sections 304A, 337, 338, 427 and 279,1.P.C. and the copy of the Challan (Ex. P. 2) was also filed on record. (Ex. P. 7) is the order of the Court of the learned Magistrate by which the truck was handed over to the appellant on Supurdaginama. Ex. P. 11 is the statement given by the appellant before the police wherein he has deposed that he was the owner of the offending vehicle. Even assuming that the said document (Ex. P. 11) is inadmissible, the other evidence on record clearly establishes beyond doubt particularly by way of the conduct and admission of the appellant that he was the owner of the offending vehicle.
(3.) IN this appeal, the question is whether the appellant was served with the notice of the proceedings or not before the Tribunal and whether the proceedings ex parte should be set aside or not on account of the non -service of the summons on the appellant.;