JUDGMENT Notices were issued, to the respondents 1 to 4 by registered A/d post, but the same have not been received back. Therefore, we presume service under Order 5 Rule 19-A C.P.C. effected on the said respondents. Though the office has listed this appeal for default in depositing paper-books' costs, in our opinion, it is not necessary, as the appeal can be disposed of right now. Counsel heard. The claim petition of the appellant was dismissed on 9.9.1985 as he committed default in depositing publication charges for effecting service byway of publication on respondents 1 to 4. Counsel for the appellant submits that an amount of Rs. 1,000/- towards publication was ordered to be deposited, but the appellant being a poor and handicapped person, could not deposit the same, nor the Court granted time. Considering the peculiar circumstances of the case, we quash the award and restore the claim petition of the appellant, and direct the Tribunal to issue notices to respondents 1 to 4 in ordinary manner as well as by registered A/d post and also to make an order for substituted service by affixture as provided under Order 5 Rule 20 C.P.C. We direct the parties to appear before the Tribunal on 8th of Jan. 1993. On that date the appellant shall take all steps for issuance of notices as ordered. As the claim is pending since 1982, the Tribunal is further directed to see that the proceedings are disposed of as far as possible within a period of six months from 8.1.1993. At this stage, Shri V.K. Sharma, counsel for the respondent 5 submits that it is because of non taking the steps by the appellant, the claim-petition filed in the year 1981 was dismissed on 9.9.1985, against which this appeal is pending since. 1985, services of which have been made on the respondents only in the year 1992. As the appeal is being disposed of today, in case the claim is allowed, the appellant-claimant be not allowed interest for this period because of the lapses on the part of the appellant. Reliance was placed on an unreported decision of this Court in Misc. Appeal No. 164/1991, decided on 1.9.1992 (Dhaniram & another v. Gurudeepsingh and others), following the decision of this Court in Sanjay Kumar v. Munnalal [1992 (I) MPJR 89]. Reliance was placed on an unreported decision of this Court in Misc. Appeal No. 164/1991, decided on 1.9.1992 (Dhaniram & another v. Gurudeepsingh and others), following the decision of this Court in Sanjay Kumar v. Munnalal [1992 (I) MPJR 89]. The submission is just, hence, we direct that in case the award is passed against the owner, drive and Insurance Company, the Tribunal shall take care in regard to award of interest, which will not be saddled on the respondents for the period of default. In terms of the aforesaid observations and directions, the appeal is disposed of with no order as to costs.