-1- 2025:CGHC:40672 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 272 of 2021 Harishankar @ Lalta Dubey S/o Sahdeo Dubey, Aged About 62 Years R/o Village Bafna, P.S. and Tahsil Odgi, Surajpur District Surguja, Now Surajpur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - Manmet Wd/o Late Tirath Prasad Yadav, Aged About 40 Years R/o Indarpur P.S. And Tehsil Odgi, Surajpur, District Surguja Now Surajpur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Chandrakant, S/o Late Tirath Prasad Yadav, Aged About 14 Years (Minor), Through Guardian Mother Manmet (Respondent No.1), R/o Indarpur P.S. And Tehsil Odgi, Surajpur, District Surguja Now Surajpur Chhattisgarh, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Abhinav Dubey, Advocate, holding the brief of Mr. Sunil Tripathi, Advocate For Respondents : None though served Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 12.08.2025 1) The petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.12.2020 passed by the IIIrd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District-Surajpur, in Civil MJC No. 10/2016, whereby the petitioner’s application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE -2- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for setting aside the ex parte award dated 27.06.2016, was rejected. 2) The brief facts of the present case are that a claim case was filed by the respondent under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, on account of the death of one Tirat Prasad Yadav (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’) on 17.10.2010. It was alleged that at about 7 am, the petitioner took the deceased on his motorcycle, and while riding his motorcycle bearing registration No. CG- 15-C-8363 rashly and negligently met with an accident, causing injuries to the deceased, which resulted in his death. It was further pleaded that the deceased was working as a labourer, earning 9,000 per month; thus, the claimants ₹ claimed compensation to the tune of 10,00,000. ₹ 3) A summons was issued to the petitioner; as per the service reports dated 14.09.2012 & 8.4.2013, he was out of station, and therefore, the summons could not be served. Thereafter, the matter was placed before the Lok Adalat, scheduled for 06.12.2014, and its notice was duly served on the petitioner. A registered notice was also sent to the petitioner and was served on 18.05.2015. 4) On 25.06.2015, the petitioner was proceeded ex parte, and an ex parte award was passed by the learned Tribunal on 30.12.2020. Since the vehicle was not insured, the liability to pay compensation of 4,28,000/- with interest at 9% per ₹ annum from the date of the accident was fastened upon the petitioner. 5) The petitioner moved an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, inter alia, on -3- the ground that the summons was not duly served and he could not defend his case. It was also pleaded that a copy of the ex parte award was sent through post and was received by him on 26.07.2016. The application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC was filed on 31.08.2016 but was rejected by the Tribunal vide order dated 15.09.2017. Against that order, the petitioner preferred W.P.(227) No. 1074/2018, wherein the award was set aside and the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC was restored. The Tribunal, after affording an opportunity of hearing and considering the material available on record, again rejected the said application. Against the said order, the present petition has been filed. 6) Mr. Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the summons was not duly served. He would contend that earlier service reports show that the petitioner was out of station, and the registered notice was also not served properly. It is contended that the earlier rejection of the application was without affording a sufficient opportunity to lead evidence, and therefore, the matter was remitted back, but due service of summons has not been proved by leading evidence; thus, he prays for setting aside the Tribunal’s order dated 30.12.2020. 7) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 8) The record reveals that a summons was issued to the petitioner on 14.09.2012 and 08.04.2013, both of which were returned with the remark that the petitioner was out of station. Again, a notice was issued, and the matter was placed before the Lok Adalat, and that notice was served on the petitioner. A registered notice -4- was also served upon the petitioner, and its acknowledgment is exhibited as Exhibit A-9. 9) The Tribunal afforded the petitioner an opportunity to lead evidence. The petitioner denied his signature on Exhibit A-9, but admitted having received the notice for his appearance before the Lok Adalat. He did not deny the signature of his wife on Exhibit NA-13. He also admitted that he had intended to settle the matter. The Tribunal recorded a finding that the registered notice was duly served on 18.05.2015, and the notice for appearance before the Lok Adalat was also served; thus, this fact stood admitted by the petitioner. Accordingly, the application was rejected. 10) In the present case, the petitioner failed to prove that he had no knowledge of the pending claim case; on the contrary, in his evidence, he admitted the receipt of notice for appearance before the Lok Adalat. Further, the registered notice was served on him on 18.5.2015, and acknowledgment has been exhibited as Annexure A/9. As per the provisions of Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, if a registered notice is issued at the correct address, service shall be deemed to have been effected. 11) Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, provides that— "27. Meaning of service by post Where any [Central Act] [Substituted by A.O.1937, for " Act of the Governor General-in-Council.] or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act authorizes or requires any document to be served by post, whether the expression -5- serve or either of the expressions give or send or any other expression is used, then, unless a different intention appears, the service shall be deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting by registered post, a letter containing the document, and, unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post.” 12) Considering the above-discussed facts and the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the petition is hereby dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nadim