Civil Revision No.6143 of 2009 - 1 - ****** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6143 of 2009 Date of decision:18.08.2010. Surinder Singh ...Petitioner Versus Parminder Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. S.S.Salar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Amrik Singh, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. This revision petition is directed against order of the Additional District Judge, Ropar dated 19.08.2009 by which an application filed by the petitioner for setting aside ex-parte award dated 02.08.2006 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ropar [for short “Tribunal”] in MACT case No.32 of 08.06.2005 titled as 'Parminder Singh and others v. Surinder Singh and others', has been dismissed. Briefly, the respondents filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [for short “the Act”] for Civil Revision No.6143 of 2009 - 2 - ****** compensation against the petitioner on account of death of Manjit Singh. The said claim petition titled as 'Parminder Singh and others v. Surinder Singh and others' was allowed and amount of Rs.1,25,000/- was awarded as compensation. The present petitioner was ex-parte before the learned Tribunal. He filed an application for setting aside the ex-parte judgment after a period of 2 years. The main contention of the petitioner was that though he is not a resident of village Malikpur Tapprian, but has been proceeded against ex-parte on the basis of service effected by way of 'munadi' in the village which he had left after selling his property. This contention has been discussed threadbare, on the basis of evidence available on record, by the learned Additional District Judge, Ropar and has observed as under: - “perusal of the original file shows that in the claim petition, the claimants have specifically mentioned both the addresses of applicant Surinder Singh and his brother Dharam Singh. Perusal of the zimni order reveals that applicant Surinder Singh was ordered to be summoned through RC and summons. The summons were sent at the address of Mohali. Perusal of summons dated 29.11.2005 show that summon sent to Surinder Singh at Mohali was received back with a report of avoiding the service and process server has affixed a copy of the summon at the address of Mohali. Perusal of RCs further reveal that those Rcs were also sent at SAS Nagar Mohali, House Civil Revision No.6143 of 2009 - 3 - ****** No.237, but, those RCs were received back as unclaimed. Order dated 1.3.2006 of the learned predecessor of this Court further reveals that it has been specifically mentioend by the learned MACT that in his opinion, respondent No.1 & 2 (applicant in the present case) are evading the service and that they cannot be served through ordinary process. Therefore, they were ordered to be summoned through Munadi. Thereafter the Munadi was effected at village address of applicant. Despite the fact that Munadi was dully effected, the applicant did not come present in the court and learned MACT proceeded the applicant ex-parte. The version of the applicant that he never resided in the village cannot be believed, as, the witness Dharam Singh examined by the applicant, who is none-else but the real brother of applicant has admitted in his cross- examination that it is correct that he along with his brother Surinder Singh are residing together in one house since 1987-88. His brother Surinder Singh has remained Sarpanch of the village till 2003 and thereafter, his wife, contested as Sarpanch in the village. They used to cultivate the land in the village. He used to go village occasionally. He has further admitted is as correct that wife of Surinder Singh applicant remained Sarpanch of the village for five years and she used to visit her village Civil Revision No.6143 of 2009 - 4 - ****** occasionally. Thus from the testimony of this witenss, it transpires that applicant along with his wife and brother are visiting their village. They have not permanently left their village. Munadi was rightly effected at village address of the applicant. Even otherwise, Rcs and summons were sent at SAS Nagar also. Despite so many efforts made by the Court for the summoning of applicant, he did not care to attend the Court and contest the claim petition. After passing of the award on 02.08.2006, when the execution of the claimants was pending and the property of the applicant was ordered to be attached, he has moved the present applicant for setting aside the ex-parte award on 19.09.2007, i.e. after the gap of one year. No satisfactory explanation has come on the record for filing the application for setting aside ex-parte award beyond the limitation period. It cannot be said that the award was not in the knowledge of the applicant for the one year. Hence, the issue stands decided against the applicant.” Aggrieved against the impugned order, the petitioner has submitted that he could not have been proceeded against ex- parte on the basis of service effected by way of 'munadi' in his village. In support of his contention, he has basically relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rabindra Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Cooperation, Punjab and others, Civil Revision No.6143 of 2009 - 5 - ****** (2008) 7 Supreme Court Cases 663 and a decision of this Court in the case of Harbhej Singh v. Diwan Singh and others, 1990 Civil Court Cases 258 (P&H). In reply, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner can not take the plea of his absence from the village as his wife was the serving Sarpanch of the village when the 'munadi' was conducted. This fact is admitted by learned counsel for the petitioner. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and scrutinized the record with their able assistance. Insofar as the judgment in the case of Rabindra Singh's case (supra) is concerned, the defendant in that case was residing in a foreign country for the last 25 years and was never served with any notice though the plaintiff had full knowledge of his correct address. Substituted service was effected at his village address which was not held to be a sufficient service and ex-parte decree was set aside. In the case of Harbhej Singh's case (supra), Process Server himself had reported that defendant is not residing in the village. Though there is no order of substituted service, but on the basis of 'munadi' conducted in the village the defendant was proceeded ex-parte. In these facts and circumstances, the ex-parte decree was set aside. In the present case, the facts are altogether different which have been taken care of by the learned Court below that the petitioner has been trying throughout to avoid service at his city Civil Revision No.6143 of 2009 - 6 - ****** address and when he was served by way of 'munadi' in his village, his wife was the Sarpanch, therefore, he cannot take the plea that he was absent and could not come to know about proceedings before the learned Tribunal. To my mind, a total flimsy plea has been raised by the petitioner in order to avoid his liability which has been imposed upon him by the learned Tribunal by way of award. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition and as such, the same is hereby dismissed with costs. August 18, 2010. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE