IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 8369 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: November 21, 2011 M/s The New India Assurance Company Limited .. Petitioner Vs. Sarbjit Kaur and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. R.K. Bashamboo, Advocate for the petitioner. Respondents No.6 and 7 ex-parte. A.N. Jindal, J The petitioner has invoked the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 3.4.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fatehgarh Sahib. The main question raised by the Insurance Company- petitioner is that they were not served in the claim petition filed against them in which the award was passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fatehgarh Sahib on 15.4.2008. In that case, the Insurance Company- petitioner was respondent No.3. In order to prove the valid service upon the respondent No.3- Insurance Company, Manjit Kaur appeared in the court and furnished her affidavit stating that the Insurance Company was well aware of the pendency of the claim petition as well as they were served through registered covers sent to it but it failed to appear in the claim petition as well as in the execution. The claim petition was instituted on 23.2.2007 and the ex-parte award was passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fatehgarh Sahib on 15.4.2008. On institution of the claim petition on 23.2.2007, notice was issued to the respondents for service, for 4.5.2007 on filing of PF, RC and then the order dated 4.5.2007 indicates that summons had not been received back served or otherwise and the registered covers so sent were also not received back. Since the registered covers sent on 2.3.2007 had not been received back and then after one month of the expiry of the said period, it was to be presumed that they have been duly served, therefore, the service Civil Revision No. 8369 of 2010 -2- *** would be presumed to have been effected. Even otherwise, it has not been disputed that the vehicle was not insured and no other defect was pointed out for awarding compensation to the claimants. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that they only pray that the driver was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident and the vehicle was being plied without permit. No such documents have been produced on the record in order to establish that the licence held by the respondent was not valid or the vehicle was driven without permit. The ex-parte order passed by the trial court is well reasoned and well founded. No grounds to interfere. Dismissed. November 21, 2011 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge