THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY M.A.C.M.A.No:996 of 2005 And C.R.P.No.2601 of 2005 COMMON JUDGMENT: This C.M.A. and C.R.P. arise out of the same proceedings. Hence, they are disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the C.M.A. The respondents 1 to 3 filed M.O.P.No.252 of 1997 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- District Judge, Visakhapatnam, claiming a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- towards compensation on account of the death of late A.M. Dutta. It was pleaded that the deceased was employed as Supervisor by M/s. A.L. Sudarshan Construction Company Limited, and when he was supervising the work in the Airport on 1.05.1996, he was hit by the lorry bearing No. AHT 2284, owned by the appellant and insured with the fourth respondent. They have furnished particulars as to the age and earnings of the deceased and alleged that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle. The appellant, who figured as the first respondent in the O.P., was set ex parte. The Tribunal passed order dated 10.03.2003 awarding Rs.3,50,000/- as compensation against the appellant alone. The appellant filed I.A.No.2545 of 2004 under Order 9 Rule 13 with a prayer to set aside the ex parte order dated 10.03.2003. Since there was delay of 135 days in presenting the application, he filed I.A.No.2544 of 2004 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Through common order dated 17.03.2005, the Tribunal dismissed the applications. Hence, the appeal and the revision. Heard Sir Y.V. Ravi Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned counsel for the fourth respondent. The specific case of the appellant is that it did not receive summons in the O.P., and even its description was not complete. The delay is said to have occurred on account of the fact that it came to know about the proceedings only when steps were being taken to recover the amount. The Tribunal was guided by the endorsement made in the docket to the effect that respondents 1 and 2 in the O.P. were served. The contention of the appellant that not even its complete address was furnished in the O.P., was not at all dealt with. When the address is incomplete, one cannot just expect that the notice be served. Mere fact that an endorsement was made on the docket cannot constitute the basis to deny the appellant, the right to contest the O.P. A curious and strange approach on the part of the Tribunal is evident from the order in the O.P. as regards issue No.2. That related to the proof of occurrence of accident. A finding was recorded to the effect that the issue is proved against the appellant herein, who was figured as the first respondent on the ground that it remained ex parte and that it is held not proved against the fourth respondent-Insurance Company. It is just unimaginable as to how the same issue is found in one manner against the owner of the vehicle and in another manner against the insurer. This anomaly can be cured by permitting the appellant to contest the O.P. The delay was not enormous and it is properly explained. Hence, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and Civil Revision Petition are allowed. As a result, I.A.Nos.2544 and 2545 of 2002 are also allowed. Consequently, the order dated 30.10.2003 passed in M.O.P.No.252 of 1997 shall stand set aside. The Tribunal shall take up the matter afresh and dispose of the same as early as possible, after giving opportunity to both the parties. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ (L. Narasimha Reddy, J.) 12th October, 2009 Js.