- (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against orders dated 25.3.14 and 5.2.11 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bali, whereby the applications preferred under Order IX, Rule 7, CPC for setting aside the order directing proceeding ex parte against the petitioner, stand rejected.
(2.) THE relevant facts are that the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 herein, filed the claim for compensation under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, on account of death of their husband/father in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 21.3.2008. Despite service of the notice, nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioner -Insurance Company and therefore, vide order dated 28.5.09, the Tribunal directed proceeding ex parte against it. After a lapse of more than a year, on 6.7.10, the petitioner -Insurance Company filed an application under Order IX, Rule 7 for setting aside the order dated 5.2.09 alleged to have been passed by the Tribunal directing proceeding ex parte against the petitioner contending that the summons issued by the court were sent for service to the Pune Office of the Insurance Company instead of Jaipur office. It was averred that the summon was not accompanied by copy of the claim petition and the papers relating to the criminal case. According to the petitioner -Insurance Company, it came to know about the pendency of the claim petition through their counsel on 12.6.10.
(3.) THE application was contested by the claimants by filing a reply thereto. After due consideration of the rival submissions, the Tribunal arrived at the finding that the papers relating to the insurance given to the claimants by the petitioner -Insurance Company were issued by its Pune office and therefore, there is no error in service being effected upon the petitioner -Insurance Company at its Pune office. The Tribunal found that the notices for the date of hearing 5.2.09 were duly served upon the petitioner -Insurance Company on 27.11.08. The Tribunal observed that on 5.2.09 and 13.5.09, nobody appeared on behalf of the Insurance Company and therefore, the order passed on 28.5.09 directing proceeding ex parte against the petitioner -Insurance Company cannot be faulted with. The Tribunal observed that on 5.2.09, no order directing proceeding ex parte was passed by the Tribunal against the petitioner -Insurance Company, rather, the order was passed on 28.5.09, however, no application has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner -Insurance Company for setting aside the order dated 28.5.09 directing proceeding ex parte. Accordingly, the application preferred was rejected by the Tribunal vide order dated 5.2.11.;