MOHANBHAI MODIDAS VAIRAGI (VASHNAV) Vs. VIJAYKUMAR CHANDRAMPAHAN MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned advocate Mr.Hakim for appellant. Respondent No.1 is deleted from the array of the parties whereas learned advocate Mr.Hakim for the appellant has prayed to dispense with service of notice upon unserved respondent No.2 relying upon the provisions of Order 41 Rule 14(4) of the C.P.C read with the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India between A. Robert Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (1999) AIR SC 2977.

(2.) The bare reading of above two references made it clear that if any litigant is served but absent before the trial court and thereafter if he could not be served then notice upon unserved respondents can be dispensed with. Whereas, so far as such appeals or proceedings for compensation under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is concerned, if there is no issue or dispute regarding liability of insurance company and when issue in the appeal is limited to quantum of compensation only, Hon'ble Supreme Court has confirmed that appeal can be proceeded further dispensing with the notice upon driver and owner of the offending vehicle when their insurance company has no option but to indemnify them. Therefore, request by learned advocate for the appellant to dispense with the notice is accepted.

(3.) Similarly, respondent Nos.3 and 4 though duly served remained absent whereas respondent No.5 is represented by learned advocate Mr.H.S. Shah, who is also heard on merits.