Civil Revision No.4833 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4833 of 2011 Date of Decision:11.08.2011 Satyavir @ Abhey Singh @ Dholia ......Petitioner Versus Thawar Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Mukesh Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The crux of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for a limited purpose of deciding the core controversy involved in this revision petition and emanating from the record, is that the claimant filed a claim petition for the grant of compensation against Satyavir @ Abhey Singh @ Dholia-petitioner-respondent No.1 and others-respondent Nos.2 to 5. As, petitioner-respondent No.1 did not contest the main claim petition, despite service, therefore, ex parte proceedings were ordered against him, by means of order dated 08.01.2008, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(for short “the MACT”). 2. Having completed all the codal formalities, the MACT passed the award dated 20.10.2009 in favour of the claimant. Now, petitioner-respondent No.1 moved an application, for setting aside the ex parte order dated 08.01.2008 and the main award dated 20.10.2009. 3. The MACT dismissed the application of the petitioner, for setting aside the proceedings/main award, by virtue of impugned order dated 23.07.2011 (Annexure P-1). 4. Petitioner-respondent No.1 did not feel satisfied with the impugned Civil Revision No.4833 of 2011 2 order(Annexure P-1) and preferred the present revision petition, invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition in this regard. 6. As is evident from the record that the petitioner belongs to the village Kherki, Tehsil and District Mohindergarh. The same address is mentioned in the claim-petition. So much so, he was duly served at the same address, in a criminal case at village Kherki. The same address is also so mentioned in a final police report(Ex.PW3/C) under Section 173 Cr.P.C. The perusal of the impugned order would reveal that notice was issued to the petitioner for 22.10.2007 on the given address, whereby on 30.08.2007, his wife met the process-server. As per his report, she told that the petitioner had gone to Narnaul on that day. The report of the process-server is signed by the Chowkidar. The process-server again went to the house of the petitioner on 18.09.2007. Again, same thing was repeated by the Chowkidar that the petitioner had gone to Mohindergarh on that day. The process- server again went to his village on 23.10.2007, where his father and mother were found present and they told that he has gone to his in-laws. This report of the process-server was also attested by Billu Chowkidar and Sardar Singh son of Duli Chand, resident of village Kherki. Although, the petitioner was duly served through the adult members of his family, but still as an abundant caution, the Court issued him fresh summons for 01.08.2008 through ordinary as well as registered post. The process-server went to serve the petitioner, where again he was told on 03.11.2007 that the petitioner was not available in the house. Thereafter, again the process-sever went to his house on 22.11.2007, where again his father met and gave the same statement. Again on 28.12.2007, the process server went to the village of the petitioner, where his mother told the process server that the petitioner had gone out for doing his work. As per report, the process-server Civil Revision No.4833 of 2011 3 requested the father, mother and the brother of the petitioner to accept the service, but they refused to do so. Accordingly, the summons were returned with the report of refusal and the service was duly attested by the Chowkidar of the village. In this manner, the MACT after appraisal of the material on record, has recorded a finding of fact that the petitioner was duly served and the pendency of the claim petition was well within his knowledge. 7. Meaning thereby, once, it is proved on record that, the petitioner was duly served, then a heavy burden of proof was upon him, to prove that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing, when the case was called on for hearing. He has miserably failed to prove in this respect. He waited and after passing of the main award, moved the present application, in order to delay the payment of awarded amount of compensation to the unfortunate claimant. 8. Moreover, the trial Court has recorded the valid grounds in the impugned order in this relevant behalf. Such order, containing the valid reasons, cannot legally be set aside, in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction of this Court, as contemplated under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, unless the same is perverse and without jurisdiction. As, no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, the impugned order is hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 9. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant revision petition is hereby dismissed as such. August 11, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE