1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.1269 OF 2011 (Sunil s/o Nanaji Pande vs. Smt. Somatibai wd/o Hira Dhande and others) __________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri H.M. Mohta, Advocate for the petitioner. -------- CORAM : R.M. SAVANT, J. DATED : JULY 6, 2011 The above petition takes exception to the order dated 1/2/2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amravati whereby Miscellaneous Application No.292/2010 filed by the petitioner for setting aside the award dated 16/7/2007 passed in the Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 191/2002 came to be rejected. The petitioner is the owner of the vehicle, which was involved in a fatal accident, which resulted in death of husband of the respondent no.1. The respondents accordingly filed claim petition 2 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amravati. On the basis of the evidence on record, award dated 16/7/2007 came to be passed in the said motor accident claims petition whereby compensation of Rs.1,25,500/- was awarded to the respondents herein. The petitioner did not appear in the said claim petition and after the award was put in execution, the petitioner filed the instant application bearing No.292/2010 for setting aside the award on the ground that it was an ex parte award. It was the case of the petitioner in the application that the summons in the said M.A.C.P. No.191/2002 was not served upon him as he had changed his residential address to Wathoda, Taluq Dhamangaon, District Amravati whereas in the claim petition, his address mentioned was Wathoda, Post Dhaba, Taluq Tiwasa, District Amravati. The Tribunal considered the said application filed by the petitioner and on the ground that the address mentioned in the claim petition was the same as that appearing in the registration book and that the summons was served on the said address as also considering the fact that a newspaper publication 3 was issued in respect of the said summons, came to a conclusion that the petitioner had not made out any case for setting aside the award and rejected the application. The Tribunal was also of the view that in terms of Section 49 of the Motor Vehicles Act, any change in address has to be communicated by the concerned party to the Registration Authority so that changes could be made in the relevant record of the Regional Transport Authority. It is sought to be contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the change of address had taken place in view of the fact that Wathoda is in two Talukas – one in Tiwasa Taluka and another in Dhamangaon Taluka and, therefore, summons was not served on the petitioner. However, in the instant case, as mentioned hereinabove, the newspaper publication was also issued and the summons was issued at the address mentioned in the cause title, which was on the basis of the address in the relevant RTO record. In my view, considering the reasons mentioned by the Tribunal, the impugned order does not merit any interference in the writ jurisdiction of 4 this Court. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, as observed by the Tribunal, it would be open for the petitioner to contest the award on merits by adopting appropriate proceedings in that behalf. JUDGE khj