JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed by the insurer, against the judgment and award of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagaur dated 8.11.2001, passed in claim case No. 6/2000, decreeing the claim for a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- against the defendants No. 1, 3 and 4. 2. The appeal was filed on 4.2.2002, it came up for admission on 5 4.4.2002, and was admitted, and on stay application, notices were ordered to be issued. When summons were sent, the summons of defendant No. 3 before the learned trial Court, who was impleaded as a respondent No. 11 before this Court, were received unserved, with the report, that no such person exists at the address given in the summons, which was the address 10 as given by the claimants in the learned trial Court. 3. Thereafter summons were sent again, but again the same were received unserved with the same report, while the other respondents have been served, and appearance have been put in on their behalf. In these circumstances, on 14,12.2004, the appellant filed an application under Order 5 Rule 20 CPC, contending that they made all efforts, including through their investigator, but they could not locate the address of respondent No. 11, and therefore, it was prayed, that the summons, be got served by publication in the local daily newspaper. 4. Since, it had been sitting in civil Miscellaneous Appeals, arising out of motor accident cases, for quite some time, and in that process, have come across many such incidents of fraud, viz., in one case, even before issuance of the summons by the claims Tribunal, a Vakalatnama happened to be filed on behalf of the owner. Thereafter, the counsel never appeared, and the claim was decreed, wherein insurance company was exonerated. Then the owner filed appeal before this Court, contending that he was never served with any summons, he never appeared, and never engaged any counsel, that matter was admitted by me. Likewise, another incident also came to be noticed, of the same nature, where the owner came with a story, about the counsel having obtained Vakalatnama for the purpose of release of the vehicle from the criminal Court, and that Vakalatnama was used by being filed in the claims Tribunal, in collusion with the claimant, without his instructions, and decree had been passed against him, on account of exoneration of the insurance company. Today itself again, I came across yet another case, being S.B.C.M.A. No. 802 of 2004, New India Assurance Co. v. Rukmani Bai & Ors. , in that case the claim was filed in the year 1998, and was decreed on 28.11.2003, wherein the owner was represented by an advocate, but then, when the summons of the appeal were sent, the summons of the owner were returned, with the report, about owner having died some 10-12 years ago. Similar many incidents had come to my notice, therefore, keeping in mind that experience, on receiving the application under Order 5 Rule 20 I got suspicious, and entertained a doubt, that this might also be a case of a nature, similar to those ones, and therefore, I wanted to make sure, as to how the present respondent No. 11 was served in the trial Court, and therefore, on 14.12.2004, it was ordered on this application, that the record of the learned trial Court be requisitioned, and the application shall be considered thereafter. Accordingly, the record was requisitioned and the same has been received. 5. Re-enforcing my apprehensions, the record makes startling revelations, inasmuch as, the claim has been filed on 13.1.2000, whereon on 35 21.2.2000, it was ordered to be registered, summons were ordered to be issued to the respondents through registered post. It appears from the endorsement in the margin of the order-sheet, that the notices were received from the court, probably, by the learned counsel for the claimant. The case was fixed on 15.4.2000, on that day appearance was put in on behalf of the 40 defendants No. 1 and 2 by Shri Bhanwar Lal Godara, who filed Vakalatnama, while the summons of respondents No. 3 and 4 were not received. However, Vakalatnama was filed on behalf of the Divisional Manager of defendant No. 4, and the case was fixed on 27.5.2000. 6. However, Vakalatnama was filed on behalf of the Divisional Manager of defendant No. 4, and the case was fixed on 27.5.2000. 6. I find from the record, that summons were issued to the defendants 45 No. 2 and 4 by registered post, but then, there is nothing to indicate that summons of respondents No. 1 and 3 were so despatched by the registered post, inasmuch as, the receipts indicating booking of the registered letter, in the name of the defendants No. 2 and 4 is affixed on the backside of the summons of the defendants No. 2 and 4, while there is no such receipt on so the summons of defendants No. 1 and 3. 7. On 27.5.2000 it is recorded, that one Shri Moola Ram Khatod, advocate, purportedly appeared on behalf of the defendant No. 3, and prayed for time to file Vakalatnama, and reply. Believing that, the case was adjourned on 28.7.2000. Then on 28.7.2000 again, Shri Moola Ram appeared and sought time for filing Vakalatnama and reply, which was granted, and the case was fixed on 19.8.2000, that day again, same thing happened, and the case was adjourned to 7.9.2000. On 7.9.2000 said Moola Ram evaporated, 5 i.e., did not appear, however that day Shri Bhanwar Lal filed Vakalatnama on behalf of defendant Soorsingh (defendant No. 1), and the case was adjourned to 11.9.2000. On 11.9.2000 it was noticed, that application has been filed by the insurer, defendant No. 4, under Order 6 Rule 5 CPC, which was rejected after considering the matter on merits. Then last opportunity to was granted to file reply to the defendant No. 2 and 4, but then, nothing was mentioned about defendant No. 3, who is the registered owner. Thereafter, i.e., since then, the matter proceeded without even considering, the fact as to whether defendant No. 3 has been served, or as to whether anybody is appearing on his behalf, and claim was decreed, treating as if the defendant 15 No. 3 did not appear. Significantly, no order has been passed ordering the matter to proceed against him ex-parte. 8. Significantly, no order has been passed ordering the matter to proceed against him ex-parte. 8. Before me, the main ground of the insurer, in the appeal is, that the vehicle being a private vehicle, the insurer is not liable for death of the passenger in the vehicle, and learned counsel has, in his support, few zo judgments of this Court, including Division Bench judgment, with the result, that ultimately the liability is sought to fall on the registered owner, the defendant No. 3, the present respondent No. 11. 9. Thus, to say the least, the whole narration shows, that somehow, a systematic fraud has been played upon the Court, that the Court should be 25 made to believe, as if the registered owner has been served. It appears that the other counsel was feeling sure, to the effect, that the liability has to be fastened on the insurer, and as the things also happened, the Court conveniently fell prey to the designs. This is a very serious matter, and in view of the rampant and prevailing practice of this nature, resulting into the 30 situation, like the present one, and those as noticed above, wherein ultimately the owner, the insured, is sought to be held liable, or may happen to be held liable, even without getting opportunity of hearing from the learned Tribunal. 10. In view of the things, being so writ large, instead of keeping the 35 matter further pending, in my view, the least that is required to be done to the litigation is, that since the award has been passed by the learned Tribunal, without serving the registered owner of the vehicle, on whom the liability is ultimately sought to be fastened, by the appellant, the award has to be set aside, and the matter is required to be sent back to the learned trial Court, 40 for issuing summons of the claim to the defendant No. 3, and after service, in case defendant No. 3 chooses to appear, then after receiving his reply, try out the matter afresh, in accordance with law. 11. 11. At the same time, as noticed above, Shri Moola Ram Khatod, who appeared before the learned trial Court on 27.5.2000, giving out to be 45 appearing on behalf of defendant No. 3, and also sought time, on couple of dates, to file Vakalatnama and reply, and thereafter did not appear, has clearly made the trial Court to believe, as if the defendant No. 3 has been served, and/or he is representing him, while the defendant No. 3 had never been served, and as the thing appear, he never engaged Shri Moola Ram 50 Khatod, as his advocate. Thus, this act of Shri Moola Ram Khatod, clearly amounts to interfering with the judicial function of the Court, so also amounts to misdirecting the court to pass decree against a defendant, even without serving him, and this act has ultimately resulted into passing of the decree, without serving him. 12. This in my view, prima facie, clearly amounts to contempt of the 5 Court, and therefore, it is directed that a separate proceeding of contempt be initiated against Moola Ram Khatod, Advocate Nagaur, and notice be issued to him, to show cause, as to why proceedings for contempt be not initiated against him for the aforesaid act, in appearing before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagaur in claim case No. 6/2000 on 6.7.2000, to 28.7.2000 and 19.8.2000, on behalf of defendant No. 3, despite defendant No. 3 having not been served, and he having no instructions on his behalf, and which act has resulted into passing of the decree, against defendant No. 3, without serving him, which act of Shri Moola Ram Khatod, has resulted into interfering with the judicial function of the Court, so also into 15 misdirecting the court to pass decree against a defendant, even without serving him. 13. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, in the manner, that the impugned judgment and award is set aside, and the matter is sent back to the learned trial Court, with a direction to serve the defendant No. 3, the 20 registered owner, and thereafter, to proceed according to law, as directed above. It is also directed that separate proceeding be instituted for contempt against Shri Moola Ram Khatod, Advocate Nagaur and appropriate notice of contempt be issued to him as directed above. The parties are directed to bear their own costs of this appeal. 14. It is also directed that separate proceeding be instituted for contempt against Shri Moola Ram Khatod, Advocate Nagaur and appropriate notice of contempt be issued to him as directed above. The parties are directed to bear their own costs of this appeal. 14. This order may be brought to the notice of Hon'ble the Chief Justice, for kind consideration, if Hon'ble the Chief Justice likes to have this order circulated to all the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals in Rajasthan, or feels like issuing appropriate administrative instructions, in this regard, to the Tribunals, to effectively check this type of prevailing practice in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals. *******