JUDGMENT 1. - These appeals have been filed by the owner of the offending truck against the judgments dated September 28, 1979 awarding compensation to the claimants-respondents in both the cases. These appeals arise out of one accident. The facts of the cases may be summarised thus. 2. On October 8,1976 at about 4 a.m., truck No. RJA 2465 took milk packets from the Western Rajasthan Milk Production Cooperative Samiti, Industrial Area, Jodhpur. The deceased Mahavir Chand and injured Manmohan were sitting in this truck along with other employees of the said Samiti. The non-petitioner No. 1 Nagga (respondent No. 3 in the appeal No. 142 of 1984) was driving it. Without seeing the signal and looking on both sides of the railway crossing, he continued to drive the truck. It struck with the railway wagon with tremendous force. As a result thereof, deceased Mahavir Chand and injured Manmohan received serious injuries. Despite best treatment, deceased Mahavir Chand died in the hospital on October 10, 1976. The Claim Petition No. 73-A of 1977 (No. 88 of 1978) giving rise to Appeal No. 141 of 1984 was filed by his legal representatives and the Claim Petition No. 50-A of 1977 (No. 82 of 1978) giving rise to Appeal No. 142 of 1984 was filed by the injured Manmohan in the court of the District Judge, Jodhpur exercising the power of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. On the establishment of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur, the cases stood transferred there. In both the cases, the National Insurance Co. Ltd. and the Union of India were duly served with the notices. Notices of the claim petition could not be served in the ordinary course on the truck driver Nagga and truck owners Baijnath and Dayanand (non-petitioner Nos. 1 to 3). They were published in the newspapers. Even thereafter, they did not put their appearance. The cases proceeded ex parte against them. 3. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant Dayanand that he is a permanent resident of Alwar, no notice was sent there, he was not keeping himself out for the purpose of avoiding service, there was no reason for not effecting the service of the notice upon him in the ordinary way and the substituted service of notice as provided under Order 5, Rule 20, Civil Procedure Code could not be resorted to. He further contended that the provisions of this rule were also not complied with, the notice published in Praja Sewak, Jodhpur (in the case No. 50-A of 1977/ No. 82 of 1978) (Appeal No. 142 of 1984) and Dainik Jangan (in case No. 73-A of 1977/ No. 88 of 1978) (Appeal No. 141 of 1984) had no circulation in Alwar and Praja Sewak was a weekly newspaper. He lastly contended that the applications moved under Section 5, Limitation Act in both the appeals were allowed and delay in filing the appeals was condoned holding that the appellant was not served with the notices of the cases and these orders operate as res judicata. He relied upon Y.B. Patil v. Y.L. Patil, AIR 1977 SC 392 . 4. In reply, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the claimants-respondents that the address of the appellant in the claim petition was mentioned as given in the insurance certificate, the claimants could not get any other address despite their best efforts and notices were sent on the said address repeatedly in the ordinary course as well as through registered A.D. post. They further contended that the provisions of Order 5, Rule 20, Civil Procedure Code were duly complied with and there exists no good ground for setting aside judgments and awards. 5. It may be mentioned that the learned counsel for the parties also argued the appeals on merits. Their contentions are not being mentioned here as the appeals are being allowed on the ground that the appellant Dayanand was not duly served with the notice in both the claim cases. 6. Admittedly, both the claim cases proceeded ex parte against the truck owners Baijnath and Dayanand and truck driver Nagga. Notices were sent to them in the ordinary course in both the cases. In the Claim Case No. 73-A of 1977 (No. 88 of 1978), notices were also sent through registered A.D. post. It may be mentioned here that all the notices to the appellant Dayanand Kaushik were sent care of Baijnath Purohit, Nawchowkiya, Jodhpur. The notices of Dayanand and Baijnath were received back unserved with the reports that the house of Baijnath was found locked and it was reported that he was living at Phalodi. It may be mentioned here that all the notices to the appellant Dayanand Kaushik were sent care of Baijnath Purohit, Nawchowkiya, Jodhpur. The notices of Dayanand and Baijnath were received back unserved with the reports that the house of Baijnath was found locked and it was reported that he was living at Phalodi. On the applications of the claimants, it was ordered that the notices of Baijnath, Dayanand and Nagga be published in the newspapers and in compliance thereof, the composite notices for Baijnath, Dayanand and Nagga were published in Praja Sewak and Dainik Jangan. There is nothing on record of both the cases to show that the non-petitioner-appellant Dayanand was keeping out of the way for the purpose of avoiding service. There also does not exist any material on record of both the cases that the claimants-petitioners made any effort for getting notices served at Phalodi upon Baijnath and then to know from him the address of Dayanand or any effort was made to ascertain the correct address of Dayanand from the record of the registration authorities or the insurance company. It is thus clear that the condition precedent for the substituted service under Order 5, Rule 20, Civil Procedure Code was lacking in both the claim cases. According to the provisions of sub-rule (1-A) of this rule, the notice of the appellant Dayanand in respect of the Claim Case No. 50-A of 1977 (No. 82 of 1978) was not published in a daily newspaper. It was published in a weekly Praja Sewak. It is thus difficult to hold that the non-petitioner-appellant Dayanand was duly served with the notices. It may also be mentioned here that while allowing applications moved under Section 5, Limitation Act by the appellant Dayanand, it has been held that he never had any knowledge of the claim cases and the awards given in them vide order dated 28.1.1986. Both these appeals deserved to be allowed on this ground alone. 7. In view of the aforesaid findings, there arises no question of deciding cross-objections filed by the claimants for the enhancement of the amounts of compensation. It may also be mentioned here that Baijnath also filed appeals against these ex parte awards. One appeal was dismissed as being time-barred and the other appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution. 8. 7. In view of the aforesaid findings, there arises no question of deciding cross-objections filed by the claimants for the enhancement of the amounts of compensation. It may also be mentioned here that Baijnath also filed appeals against these ex parte awards. One appeal was dismissed as being time-barred and the other appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution. 8. Consequently, both the appeals are allowed and the award dated 28.9.1979 is set aside so far as the appellant Dayanand, truck driver Nagga, respondent No. 3 and National Insurance Co. Ltd., respondent No. 4/5, are concerned, on payment of Rs. 250/-each as costs to the claimants by the appellant Dayanand. The cases are remanded to the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur for deciding them afresh in accordance with law. The parties will appear there on 16.2.1990. The appellant Dayanand and non-petitioner Nagga may file their written statements by this date. The learned Tribunal will expeditiously dispose of the cases. 9. Any amount paid towards compensation by the appellant Dayanand or truck driver Nagga or National Insurance Co. Ltd. will remain with the claimants subject to the decision of the claim petitions.Appeals allowed. *******