Sham Sunder, J.:- This revision-petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for setting aside the order dated 26.04.2008, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rewari, vide which, it dismissed the application, under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, filed by the revision petitioners, for setting aside the ex-parte award, dated 12.11.2002, has been filed by the revision-petitioners.

2. The claim petition, arising out of motor vehicle accident, bearing MACT case No. 68 of 19.03.1998/07.06.2000, titled as ‘Kunj Bihari and another Vs. Gajraj alias Sahabu and another’, was decided exparte, on 12.11.2002, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. In that petition, vide the exparte award dated 12.11.2002, compensation, in the sum of Rs. 98,000/-, was awarded, alongwith interest, to Kunj Bihari etc. (now respondents).

3. An application, was moved by the petitioners, for setting aside the ex-parte award, referred to above, on the averments, that they were arrayed as respondents, in MACT case No. 68 of 1998, in the capacity of owner and driver of vehicle bearing No. RJ-14G-5389, but they were never summoned, in that claim petition, at the address, given in the title of the petition by registered post, or through process server of the Court. It was further stated by them, that they never engaged Sh. A.K. Gulati, as Counsel, to defend their case. It was further stated that had there been a valid and proper service of the respondents, they would have come present, in the Court, and participated in the proceedings. It was further stated that they would have furnished the driving licence of respondent No. 1, registration certificate of the offending vehicle, and insurance particulars of the vehicle, with a view to implead proper parties, in the petition, for the just and fair decision of the petition, without prejudice to either party. It was further stated that since the petitioners, who were respondents, in the claim petition, were never served, nor they acquired knowledge of the pendency thereof, ex-parte award was wrongly passed. It was further stated that they acquired knowledge of the aforesaid award, on receipt of a notice, in the execution proceedings, and ultimately, they came to file the petition, under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

4. The respondents/decree-holders, put in appearance, and filed reply, wherein, they opposed the application, stating therein, that Sh. A.K. Gulati, Advocate, had put in appearance, on behalf of the petitioners, who were respondents in the main claim petition, and filed power of attorney, duly executed by them. It was further stated that, later on, he did not appear, and the respondents (now petitioners) were proceeded against ex-parte. It was further stated that it was not that the respondents (now petitioners), were never summoned, nor anybody put in appearance, on their behalf. It was further stated that there was no sufficient cause for setting aside the exparte award.

5. On the application, under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the following issues, were struck:-

i) Whether the order and decree dated 12.11.2002 is liable to be set aside as alleged/ OPP

ii) Whether the petitioner-respondent is estopped from his own act and conduct from moving the application as alleged, if so its effect? OPR

iii) Whether the application for setting aside the order of exparte is not maintainable as alleged? OPR

iv) Relief.

6. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the application, was dismissed.

7. Feeling aggrieved, the instant revision-petition, has been filed, by the revision-petitioners.

8. I have heard the Counsel for the revision-petitioners, and have gone through the record of the case, carefully.

9. The Counsel for the revision-petitioners, submitted that the revision-petitioners, were never served, as respondents, in the main claim petition, by any mode. He further submitted that S