Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri V.D. Ojha, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri A. Sinha, learned counsel for respondent No. 3.

2. In all these four matters, the facts and questions of law raised are similar, therefore, as agreed by learned counsels for parties, all have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

3. With the consent of parties, Writ Petition No. 47051 of 2009 (hereinafter referred to as “First Petition”) is taken as leading case and for narration of facts and discussion, the pleadings from the leading case, i.e., the First Petition would be referred.

4. The First Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the orders dated 23.5.2008 and 4.7.2009 in Motor Accidents Claim Petition No. 17 of 2002, passed by District Judge/Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Sant Ravidas Nagar (Bhadohi-Gyanpur) (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”).

5. One Mohammad Ikram, husband of Smt. Saima Khatoon, respondent No. 4, died in an accident on 6.2.1997 with Truck No. UMG 9040, owned by petitioner, and, driven by Sri Shiv Sagar, respondent No. 5. Smt. Saima Khatoon moved Accident Claim Petition No. 17 of 2002 before Tribunal impleading petitioner as defendant No. 1, Sri Shiv Sagar as defendant No. 2, and the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Varanasi as defendant No. 3. The Tribunal passed an order on 25.1.2006 to proceed against defendants No. 1, 2 and 4 ex parte since none of them had responded despite service of notice. Thereafter it pronounced award dated 23.5.2008 awarding compensation of Rs. 4,17,500/- to the claimant. The compensation was payable by Insurance Company which was given liberty to recover the said amount from owner of vehicle and its driver, i.e. petitioner and respondent No. 5. Insurance Company proceeded to recover the amount from petitioner by filing an application before Tribunal, i.e., Misc. Application No. 73 of 2008 pursuant whereto recovery certificate was issued to Collector. When the said recovery proceedings were initiated, petitioner claimed to acquire knowledge of above proceedings only on 17.11.2008 and then preferred application dated 20.11.2008 under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. before Tribunal for recall of ex parte award dated 23.5.2008. This application accompanied with an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1963”) seeking condonation of delay. The Delay Condonation Application has been rejected by order dated 4.7.2009 and as a consequence thereof, the application under Order 9 Rule 13 has also been rejected. Hence this writ petition.

6. Sri V.D. Ojha, learned counsel for petitioner, stated that though summons were issued by registered post, and since registered letter neither received undelivered nor acknowledgement received back, hence service was deemed sufficient by Tribunal vide order dated 30.11.2002. On 19.3.2005, application (Paper No. 26-Ka) was filed by claimant seeking amendment on which order was passed for taking steps. Steps were taken on 2.4.2005. On 9.9.2005, another order was passed for taking steps and time was granted on 29.9.2005, 5.10.2005 and 10.11.2005. The order sheet dated 3.12.2004 shows that steps were taken only in respect to defendant No. 4 and not 1 and 2. Therefore, on 25.1.2006, Tribunal erred in law by holding that service upon defendants No. 1 and 2 has already been deemed sufficient, therefore, claim petition shall proceed ex parte against them. The entire subsequent proceedings are wholly illegal. He further submitted that on 21.4.2005 case was transferred from the Court of Additional District Judge to District Judge, but no notice was issued as contemplated under Rule 89-A of the General Rules (Civil), 1957 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules, 1957”) to the defendants again, hence, also the entire proceedings are illegal. He then urged that Tribunal has rejected Delay Condonation Application only on the ground that Recall Application has been file