Civil Revision No. 3250 of 2010 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 3250 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 17.5.2010 M/ Sun Technologies ..... Petitioner vs Mitro Devi and another ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Gunjan Mehta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajesh Bindal J. Prayer in the present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is for setting aside order dated 11.5.2010 (Annexure P-5), whereby the application of the petitioner for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 15.1.2008 (Annexure P-4) and ex-parte award dated 26.7.2008 (Annexure P-1) was dismissed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Karnal (hereinafter to be referred as “the Tribunal”). Briefly the facts of the case are that on 7.9.2007, Naresh Kumar was going from Karnal to Village Rasina on motorcycle no. HR-05R-1535. Sandeep Kumar was also travelling as pillion rider. The motorcycle was owned by the petitioner company. When they reached near Western Yamuna Canal Bridge on Kaithal Road, at about 11.30 p.m., an unknown truck came from behind at a high speed and hit the motorcycle. As a result of this, both of them sustained serious injuries. Naresh Kumar succumbed to his injuries at General Hospital, Karnal and Sandeep Kumar was referred to PGI, Chandigarh. FIR No. 563 dated 8.9.2007 was registered under Sections 279, 337, 304-A IPC at Police Station City Karnal. The parents of deceased Naresh Kumar filed petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. Notice of the petition was issued to the owner of the motorcycle i.e. the petitioner. Inspite of service, no one put in appearance on behalf of the company and it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 15.1.2008 (Annexure P-4). On the basis of evidence led by the claimants, the petition was allowed and a sum of Rs. 3,16,500/- was granted as compensation vide award dated 26.7.2008 (Annexure P-1). The claimants filed execution petition. Notice was issued to the petitioner for payment of the compensation amount. Thereafter, the petitioner filed application for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 15.1.2008 (Annexure P-4) and ex-parte award dated Civil Revision No. 3250 of 2010 (2) 26.7.2008 (Annexure P-1) but the learned Executing Court dismissed the same vide order dated 11.5.2010. It is this order which is impugned in the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no person in the name of Narinder had ever worked in the petitioner company. It was submitted that the report on the summons was false and fabricated one as the petitioner company was never served. It was pleaded that the proprietor of the petitioner company went to the parents of the deceased and also helped them financially. They never informed them about the filing of claim petition. It was prayed that the petitioner be allowed to contest the claim petition on merits and the ex-parte orders be quashed. However, it is not disputed that vehicle in question was not insured. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the paper-book. The facts regarding the ownership of the motorcycle and that the deceased Naresh Kumar was the employee of the petitioner company have not been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It has also not been disputed that the address given by the claimants in the claim petition and in the execution petition is correct. The notice sent by the learned Tribunal at the correct address of the company was received back duly served. Now to state that the person who had allegedly signed the acknowledgment was not the employee of the company cannot be believed once the address mentioned is correct. The case of the petitioner is not that at the same address some other commercial establishments are also there which have similar name. In execution proceedings also, the petitioner was served at the same address. Once inspite of service no one had appeared for the petitioner before the Tribunal, the order passed by the Tribunal initiating ex- parte proceedings against the petitioner cannot be said to be wrong. It seems that the petitioner wanted to avoid its liability considering the fact that vehicle was not got insured by it. For the reasons mentioned above, I find no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed as such. 17.5.2010 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge