JUDGMENT

The present Original Petition has been filed impugning the order dated 23.08.2024 passed in IA Nos.1/2023 and 2/2023 in OP(MV) No.1845/2019. The petitioner was the 1^st respondent in OP(MV) No.1845/2019. The I.A.No.1/2023 was filed by the petitioner under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ’the Code’) to set aside the ex parte award dated 22.02.2023 passed in OP(MV) No.1845/2019. According to the petitioner, he was not served with notice in OP(MV) No.1845/2019. He has no house within the limit of Idukki Colony Post Office. The said notice was redirected by the Thadiyampadu Postal Authority. No intimation was given by the said Postal Authority to the petitioner regarding the summons or notice issued by the Tribunal in the said OP(MV).

2. It is further stated that on 06.08.2018, the place where the petitioner resides was under “red alert” due to heavy rain and the petitioner was not able to move from Idukki District. On 07.08.2018, TVS Authority, on whose Company the chassis was lying, asked Kondody AutoCraft (India) Pvt Ltd to remove the chassis from their yard, anticipating heavy flood and rain. Without knowledge of the petitioner and without taking proper insurance, TVS entrusted 4^th respondent, a staff of Kondody AutoCraft to transit chassis to the bodybuilding workshop of Kondody Auto Craft. The vehicle was not properly delivered to the petitioner and the factum of the Award came to the knowledge only on receipt of notice in Execution Petition. 3. I.A.No.2/2023 was filed by the petitioner to implead Manager of TVS and Managing Director of Kondody Auto Craft Pvt.

Ltd, as additional respondents.

4. The Tribunal, after the pleadings in the I.A, framed following issues for determination:

. Is there limitation in filing petition to set aside ex parte award?

. Whether petitioner made out sufficient grounds to set aside ex parte award?

. Whether petitioner made out sufficient grounds to implead additional respondents?

. Reliefs and costs?

5. The Tribunal found that IA No.1/2023 filed under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code was not barred by limitation as the petitioner has not received any notice of Original Petition. The Tribunal also found that in view of Article 123 of the Limitation Act, the limitation starts from the date of knowledge. Hence, the Tribunal found that I.A.No.2/2023 is not barred by limitation.

6. So far as the question of setting aside the ex parte Award is concerned, the Tribunal, after verification of unclaimed envelope, has held that the letter was addressed by the Tribunal at the Thadiyampadu Post Office. It was received in the said Post Office on 20.11.2019. The said Post Office redirected the envelope with endorsement “addressee at Idukki Colony – redirected to Idukki Colony Post Office”. An inquiry was made on 02.12.2019. Thereafter intimation was given on 11.12.2019. The letter was returned as “unclaimed”.

7. According to the petitioner, he is residing within the Thadiyampadi Post Office and notice is received in E.P in the same address. The pleadings in the petition itself show that the area where the petitioner was residing frequently comes under “red alert” and therefore, the Postal Authority cannot be blamed for redirecting the envelop. The endorsement clearly shows that intimation was served to the petitioner. The notice need not be served physically. Considering the provisions of Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, the notice need to be sent in correct address which was sent by registered post.

7. In view thereof, the Tribunal did not find that the notice was not served on the petitioner and therefore, I.A.No.1/2023 was dismissed.

8. In so far as, I.A.No.2/2023 is concerned, the Tribunal found that if there was any negligence on the part of trader and body builder, the petitioner should proceed against them after satisfying the award. The petitioner would not have any right to seek impleadment of non parties to the litigation. Therefore, I.A.No.2/2023 was also dismissed.

I