RAM KEERAT SHARMA Vs. ASHA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has approached this Court for quashing of the order passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated 29.04.2009 wherein application moved on behalf of the Petitioner has been rejected.

(2.) Brief background of the case is that an accident took place qua the truck No. U.P. 78N/3831 on 25.08.2001. In the said accident claimant Murari Lal has received injury and said Murari Lal filed Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 26 of 2002 and same has been allowed on 19.01.2005. In the said claim petition awarded amount is Rs. 3,00,000/-alongwith interest. In the body of the award dated 29.01.2005 categorical finding has been returned that amount in question would be paid by the Insurance Company and thereafter Insurance Company would be free to recover the said amount from the owner of the vehicle in question. This is accepted position that Insurance Company pursuant to award in question has paid entire awarded amount to the claimant, thereafter has proceeded to recover the said amount as per liberty accorded for recovering of the said amount from the owner of the vehicle in question. Insurance Company after making payment moved an application for recovery of the amount from the owner of the vehicle and on the same notice has been issued and same was returned back with endorsement that notice has been refused to be accepted on 05.05.2006 and thereafter order was passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for seizure of the vehicle in question. Petitioner claims that he has purchased the vehicle in question during the pendency of the proceeding in question and vehicle in question as of now stands transferred in his name and after the order of seizure of the vehicle in question has been passed for seizing of the vehicle in question, he moved an application for recall of the order dated 05.05.2006. Said application has been considered and the has been rejected being not maintainable. At this juncture present writ petition in question has been filed.

(3.) Notice has been sent to each one of the Respondents by R.P.A.D. on 21.10.2009 and Office submitted its report in this regard on 15.12.2009. Thereafter this Court again on 18.11.2010 directed the office to submit fresh report and thereafter fresh report has been submitted on 23.11.2010 that notice sent to opposite party No. 1, has returned back unserved with remark 'not delivered' and in respect of opposite parties No. 2 to 4, neither undelivered cover nor acknowledged have returned back after service. Keeping in view such report and as notices have been sent at correct address, as such service on these Respondents has been is presumed to be sufficient under Chapter VIII Rule 12 of High Court Rules and thereafter matter has been taken up for final hearing and disposal.