FAO No.4682 of 2009 (O&M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** FAO No.4682 of 2009 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 23.04.2010 **** Amar Dutta . . . . Appellant VS. Naresh and others . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN **** Present: - Mr.Saurabh Dalal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Ashwani Talwar, advocate for respondents. **** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J. (ORAL) This appeal is directed against an order dated 06.5.2009 passed by Additional District Judge, Jhajjar, by which an application filed by the appellant for setting aside an ex parte award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhajjar (for short ‘the Tribunal) on 19.4.2006 has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the learned Court below has erred in appreciating document Annexure P-2/report of the Process Server dated 4.1.2005 in which the name of the appellant is not mentioned rather name of some Ram Dutt has been mentioned. It is submitted that in his report, the Process Server has mentioned that “today on date 4.1.2005, on reaching the spot FAO No.4682 of 2009 (O&M) - 2 - of the address provided, I have seen the house of Ram Dutt from outside and the person present has refused to accept summons. On the spot, one witness appended his signatures and the report is produced.” Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that since the summons have been issued in the name of Amar Dutta, Ram Dutt has rightly refused to receive summons and the service could not be disbelieved. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that on the summons, the address is of Amar Dutta only, therefore, it is only an error of omission on the part of the Process Server in writing the name of the appellant. I have heard both learned counsel for the parties. In a case where the respondent has been proceeded against ex parte, the Court has to proceed very cautiously to appreciate the report of the Process Server especially in case of refusal because sometime it could be managed also. In this case, if the learned Tribunal had taken the utmost care to see the Process Server report before proceeding against the appellant ex parte, he would have made an another effort to summon the appellant instead believing the report which causes suspicion. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the impugned order deserves to be interfered with and hence the present appeal is allowed, the impugned order passed by the Additional District Judge, Jhajjar is set aside and the ex parte award passed by the Tribunal dated 19.4.2006 is set aside. Parties are directed to appear before the Motor Accident and Claims Tribunal, Jhajjar on 10.5.2010. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) 23.04.2010 JUDGE Vivek