DAYANAND Vs. BAIJNATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals have been filed by the owner of the offending truck against the judgments dated September 28, 1979 awarding compensation to the claimant-respondents in both the cases. These appeals arise out of one accident. The facts of the cases may be summarised thus.

(2.) ON October 8, 1976 at about 4 A.M., truck No. RJA 2465 took milk packets from the Western Rajasthan Milk Production Co-operative Samiti, Industrial Area, Jodhpur. The deceased Mahavir Chand and injured Manmohan were sitting in this truck alongwith other employees of the said Samiti. The non-petitioner No. 1 Nagga (respondent No. 3 in the appeal No. 142/84) was driving it. Without seeing the signal and looking on both sides of the Railway crossing, he continued to drive the truck. It struck with the railway wagon with tremendous force. As a result thereof, deceased Mahavir Chand and injured Manmohan received serious injuries. Despite best treatment, deceased Mahavir Chand died in the hospital on October 10, 1976. The Claim Petition No. 73A of 1977 (88/78) giving rise to appeal No. 141/84 was filed by his legal representatives and the Claim Petition No. 50A of 1977 (82/78) giving rise to appeal No. 142/84 was filed by the injured Manmohan in the Court of the District Judge, Jodhpur exercising the power of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. On the establishment of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur, the cases stood transferred there. In both the cases, the National Insurance Co. and the Union of India were duly served with the notices. Notices of the claim petition could not be served in the ordinary course on the truck Driver Nagga and truck owners Baijnath and Dayanand (non-petitioners No. 1 to 3). They were published in the newspapers. Even thereafter, they did not put their appearance. The cases proceeded exparte against them.

(3.) IN reply, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the claimant-respondents that the address of the appellant in the claim petition were mentioned as given in the insurance certificate, the claimants could not get any other address despite their best efforts and notices were sent on the said address repeatedly in the ordinary course as well as through registered/AD post. They further contended that the provisions of Order 5, Rule 20, C.P.C. were duly complied with and there exists no good ground for setting aside judgments and awards.