JUDGMENT :

This Misc. Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 against the judgment dated 25.04.2003 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Anoopgarh, District Sri Ganganagar in MACT Claim No.76/1999 whereby the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Anoopgarh, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) rejected the claim filed by the appellants/claimants mainly on the premise that since the claim petition has been dismissed to the extent of respondents No.1 and 2 i.e., the driver and owner of the vehicle respectively, therefore, the sole respondent No.3 cannot be held responsible for paying the amount of compensation.

2. Bereft of elaborate details, the facts necessary for disposal of the appeal are that the appellants herein are the legal representatives/successors of deceased Devi Lal, who met with an accident on 25.03.1996 at about 6:30 p.m. near the Police Station Gharsana. A criminal case was also registered to this effect. The death of deceased Devi Lal in a vehicular accident is not under dispute and the appellants are his legal representatives is also not a question to moot.

3. The claim petition was filed by the appellants-claimants on 31.07.1996 upon which, the learned Tribunal directed to issue summon/notice to all the three respondents. It appears that the respondent No.3 had been duly served but despite several efforts, the service upon the respondents No.1 & 2 could not be effected. The learned Tribunal gave ample opportunities to the appellants to serve the respondents through regular mode of process. The application filed by the appellants under Order 5, Rule 20 of the CPC was allowed Vide order dated 16.11.2000. Notices were issued and the appellants were allowed to effect service upon the respondents through publication of notices in daily newspaper ‘Punjab Kesari’ having circulation at Patiyala. Time and again, opportunities were afforded to the appellants for publication of notice in daily newspaper but to no avail and the matter got adjourned on several occasions for this reason alone. Thus, lastly, vide order dated 28.09.2001, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim against the respondents No.1 and 2 for non-compliance of the order and for failing to get the service effected upon them despite several occasions. The claim petition was directed to be proceeded further against the respondent No.3 only i.e. the Insurance Company. Thus, the claim petition came to be rejected vide order dated 25.04.2003 and the same has been assailed herein by way of filing this Misc. Appeal.

4. Mr. N.L. Joshi, learned counsel for the appellants-claimants submits that the matter pertains to a beneficial legislation and the claim petitions are not required to be rejected on the ground of technicalities as the outcome deprives dependent of the deceased to get fair and just compensation. He further submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in rejecting the claim petition in toto instead of, rejecting the same on the premise of non-service upon the respondents No.1 & 2. The appellants-claimants furnished process fee for effecting service upon the respondents No.1 & 2 but when the ordinary task could not be fructified, therefore, an application on their behalf was filed for substituted service. It is, therefore, prayed that a lenient view is required to be taken for affording further opportunity to the appellants-claimants to get the notices published in daily newspaper having circulation in District Patiyala, Punjab.

5. Per contra, Shri Sanjeev Johari, Sr. Counsel, assisted by Mr. Tapendra Sankhla, appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3, vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the appellants-claimants. It is contended that ample opportunities were granted to the appellants to get the service effected upon the unserved respondents No.1 & 2 but they paid no heed and the trial got protracted on this count alone. The claim petition was filed way back in the year 199