Effective notice is essential in legal proceedings; improper notice can invalidate ex parte awards, allowing parties a chance to contest.

JUDGMENT

The appellant was the first respondent in OP (MV)

1001/2008 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Attingal. The respondents 1 to 4 in the appeal were the petitioners and respondents 5 to 7 were the respondents 2 to 4 before the Tribunal. The parties are, for the sake of convenience, referred to as per their status in the claim petition.

2. The petitioners had filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , claiming compensation on account of the death of one Ajith Kumar (deceased) – the husband of the first petitioner, father of the petitioners 2 and 3 and son of the fourth petitioner.

3. It was their case that, on 22.6.2008 while the deceased was riding his motor cycle bearing registration No.KL 16/B 8934 along the Kollam-Thiruvananthapuram National Highway from Attingal to Thiruvananthapuram, when he reached the LIC office, Attingal, his motor cycle was hit by a maruthi car bearing registration No.KL 01/AL 7378 (car) driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner. The deceased sustained fatal injuries and lost his life instantaneously. The car was owned by the first respondent and insured with the third respondent. The petitioners claimed a compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- from the respondents.

4. The pillion rider on the motor cycle ridden by the deceased also filed OP(MV) 1073/2010 before the same Tribunal, seeking compensation from the respondents on account of the injuries sustained by him.

5. Even though the respondents were served with notice, they did not contest the proceeding. Accordingly, the Tribunal set the respondents ex parte, consolidated and jointly tried the claim petitions.

6. The petitioners examined a witness as PW1 and marked Exts A1 to A18 in evidence.

7. The Tribunal allowed the captioned claim petition by permitting the petitioners to realise an amount of Rs.7,99,400/- from the respondents 1 and 2 for the reason that the car had no valid insurance policy. 8. Aggrieved by the impugned award, the first respondent/owner of the car is in appeal.

9. The pivotal ground of challenge in the appeal is that the appellant was not served with any summons or notice by the Tribunal and he is not residing in the address in the claim petition. Therefore, he was unaware of the pendency of the proceeding. The appellant was not the owner of the car, as he sold the car to the fifth respondent on 27.12.2007 by an agreement. All the requisite documents to transfer the ownership of the car were signed and handed over to the fifth respondent. The service of notice on the appellant and others was effected by way of paper publication. Immediately on learning about the passing of the ex-parte award, the appellant had filed IA 8105/2018 and IA 8106/2018 to set aside the ex-parte award and condone the delay of 803 days in filing the application, and also had produced Exts A1 to A4 documents to substantiate his contention that he was not residing in the address shown in the claim petition. Nevertheless, the Tribunal by order dated 31.1.2019, dismissed the applications on the ground that the appellant had not adduced any evidence to prove his assertions in the applications. Hence the appellant was not given an opportunity to contest the case on merits, which has caused severe prejudice and hardship to him. Therefore, he prays that the impugned award may be set aside.

10. The first respondent in the appeal has filed a detailed counter affidavit refuting the assertions in the memorandum of appeal. It is contended that the respondents 1 to 4 had filed EP 476/2016 to execute the impugned award. It was after revenue recovery proceedings were initiated, the appellant filed the applications to set aside the ex parte award and to condone the delay. There was no sufficient reasons to condone the delay and set aside the ex parte award. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly rejected the applications. A substantial amount is payable as compensation to the respondents 1 to 4 as per the impugn