SAVITRI DEVI Vs. DALJEET SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Misc. Appeal has been filed under Sec. 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 against the judgment dtd. 25/4/2003 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Anoopgarh, District Sri Ganganagar in MACT Claim No.76/1999 whereby the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Anoopgarh, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') rejected the claim filed by the appellants/claimants mainly on the premise that since the claim petition has been dismissed to the extent of respondents No.1 and 2 i.e., the driver and owner of the vehicle respectively, therefore, the sole respondent No.3 cannot be held responsible for paying the amount of compensation.

(2.) Bereft of elaborate details, the facts necessary for disposal of the appeal are that the appellants herein are the legal representatives/successors of deceased Devi Lal, who met with an accident on 25/3/1996 at about 6:30 p.m. near the Police Station Gharsana. A criminal case was also registered to this effect. The death of deceased Devi Lal in a vehicular accident is not under dispute and the appellants are his legal representatives is also not a question to moot.

(3.) The claim petition was filed by the appellants-claimants on 31/7/1996 upon which, the learned Tribunal directed to issue summon/notice to all the three respondents. It appears that the respondent No.3 had been duly served but despite several efforts, the service upon the respondents No.1 and 2 could not be effected. The learned Tribunal gave ample opportunities to the appellants to serve the respondents through regular mode of process. The application filed by the appellants under Order 5, Rule 20 of the CPC was allowed Vide order dtd. 16/11/2000. Notices were issued and the appellants were allowed to effect service upon the respondents through publication of notices in daily newspaper 'Punjab Kesari' having circulation at Patiyala. Time and again, opportunities were afforded to the appellants for publication of notice in daily newspaper but to no avail and the matter got adjourned on several occasions for this reason alone. Thus, lastly, vide order dtd. 28/9/2001, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim against the respondents No.1 and 2 for non-compliance of the order and for failing to get the service effected upon them despite several occasions. The claim petition was directed to be proceeded further against the respondent No.3 only i.e. the Insurance Company. Thus, the claim petition came to be rejected vide order dtd. 25/4/2003 and the same has been assailed herein by way of filing this Misc. Appeal.