2009 Supreme(Chh) 187
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
T. P. SHARMA, J.
DWARIKA PRASAD
VS.
SHAKUNTALA DUBEY
M. A. No. 761 of 2004
Decided On: JUNE 29, 2009
Mandatory provisions for serving notice must be followed before resorting to notice by advertisement in a newspaper.
Headnote:
Service of Notice - Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Order 5 Rule 20(1A) of CPC - Sections 168 and 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Fact of the Case:
The appellant challenged the dismissal of the application for setting aside the ex parte award, arguing that no personal service was effected upon the appellant and that the notice published in the newspaper was not a valid service.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Claims Tribunal had proceeded ex parte against the appellant based on notice published in the newspaper, without following the mandatory provisions for proceeding under Order 5 Rule 20(1) of the CPC. The court held that the ex parte award and the order dismissing the application for setting it aside were not legal and set them aside.
Issues: Validity of the service of notice and the legality of the ex parte award and the order dismissing the application for setting it aside.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the mandatory provisions for proceeding under Order 5 Rule 20(1) of the CPC, stating that service by affixing notice in some conspicuous place in the court-house and the defendant's house is essential before resorting to notice by advertisement in a newspaper.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the order impugned was set aside, and the ex parte award was also set aside. No costs were awarded, and the parties were directed to appear before the Claims Tribunal for further progress of the case.
( 1 ) BY this appeal the appellant has challenged legality and propriety of the order dated 11-5-2004 passed by the 2nd additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, baloda Bazaar in Miscellaneous Claim Case No. 20/2003, whereby application for setting aside the ex parte award was dismissed on the ground that notice was duly served upon the present appellant.
( 2 ) ORDER is challenged on the ground that no personal service effected upon the appellant only on the basis of publication of notice in the daily newspaper, learned Claims Tribunal proceeded ex parte against the appellant and on the application for setting aside the ex parte award the Claims Tribunal has dismissed the application and thereby committed illegality.
( 3 ) FACTS of the case, in short, leading to the present dispute are that respondents No. 1 to 5 had filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the present appellant/owner of the vehicle before the 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims tribunal, Baloda Bazaar for claim of compensation. Notice was issued to the appellant, but personal service was not effected. Notice sent through registered post was also not effected whereupon notice was published in daily news paper and finally learned Claims Tribunal proceeded ex parte and ex parte award was passed. When the serving officer went to the appellant for execution of attachment warrant, application for setting aside the ex parte award was filed and the same was dismissed on the ground that the present appellant was appearing regularly before another Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baloda Bazaar where he was facing criminal trial for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of the ipc but has not appeared before the Claims tribunal and was having knowledge of pendency of the present case.
( 4 ) I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the order impugned and record of the Court below.
( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant argued that no personal service was effected upon the appellant, the Court below has proceeded ex parte on the basis of notice published in news paper and when application for setting aside the award was filed, same was dismissed without any cogent ground.
( 6 ) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the appeal and submitted that notice effected by publication is valid service in accordance with Order 5, Rule 20 (1-A) of the CPC.
( 7 ) ORDER impugned reveals that when service is not effected through personal service or service through registered post, notice was published in daily newspaper Desh Bandhu and finally learned Claims Tribunal proceeded ex parte against the appellant. In case the defendant keeps out himself for the purpose of avoiding service, notice may be served by substituted service in accordance with Rule 20 of Order 5 of the CPC which reads as follows :-
"20. Substituted service.- (1) Where the court is satisfied that there is reason to believe that the defendant is keeping out of the way for the purpose of avoiding service, or that for any reason the summons cannot be served in the ordinary way, the Court shall order the summons to be served by affixing a copy thereof in some conspicuous place in the Court-house, and also upon some conspicuous part of the house (if any) in which the defendant is known to have last resided or carried on business or personally worked for gain, or in such other manner as the Court thinks fit. (1a) Where the Court acting under sub-rule (1) orders service by an advertisement in a newspaper, the newspaper shall be a daily newspaper circulating in the locality in which the defendant is last known to have actually and voluntarily resided, carried on business or personally worked for gain. (2) Effect of substituted service.- Service substituted by order of the Court shall be as effectual as if it has been made on the defendant personally. (3) Where service substituted, time for appearance to be fixed.- Where ser