JUDGMENT : A.H. Joshi, J. This is an appeal by original respondent No. 3, who is impleaded in the Claim Petition after amendment of Claim Petition. 2. Heard learned Adv. Mrs. S.N. Deshpande for the appellant, learned Adv. Mr. Girish Chaubey with Mis. Niraja Chaubey for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, learned AGP Mr. J.B. Jaiswal for respondent No. 3 and learned Adv. Mr. A.K. Somani for respondent No. 5. 3. It is seen that the Claim Petition was allowed by learned Member of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by Judgment and Award dated 11th November, 2003 granting compensation of Rs. 2,69,000-00 and directing the investment of amount etc.. 4. The appellant is said to be the owner of offending vehicle, which is claimed to be insured with the original respondent No. 4. 5. The sole ground on which appeal is argued is Ground No. [c], which reads as follows: (c) That according to Order 1 Rule 10 (4) of C.P.C. it is mandatory to serve the amended copy of petition with summons to the newly added parties. The appellant has not received any summons or amended copy of petition after verifying the record, it is noticed by the appellant that no such summons as per provisions of Order I Rule 10 (4) of C.P.C. was issued to any of the newly added respondents including this appellant. Therefore, the judgment and decree needs to be quashed and set aside.. [Quoted from page 4 of the appeal paper-book]. 6. The case, therefore, totally rests on record. Perused the record, and what reveals is as follows : [a] The Claim Petition is filed on 28th April, 1989, arraying three respondents as follows: 1. Regional Manager, Nagur Govt. Milk Scheme, Seminary Hills, Nagpur. 2. Secretary, Dairy Development Department, Mantralaya, Bombay. 3. Uday Singh s/o Padamsingh Madavi, r/o Zopadpatti, Laxminagar, Nagpur.. [Quoted from page No. 29 of the record of Claim Petition No. 152 of 1989]. [b] Out of those three respondents, in the course of time, the respondent No. 2 was deleted. [c] 30-11-2002:- An application for amendment seeking leave to add parties and incorporating some averments has been filed by the claimants, which is at Exh.25. An order of notice to proposed party was passed thereon on same day. [d] 17-1-2003 :- Summons [Exh.27] has been issued for appearance. [c] 30-11-2002:- An application for amendment seeking leave to add parties and incorporating some averments has been filed by the claimants, which is at Exh.25. An order of notice to proposed party was passed thereon on same day. [d] 17-1-2003 :- Summons [Exh.27] has been issued for appearance. [e] The summons contains a mention ' Copy will be supplied at time of appearance.. [f] 6-2-2003 -Endorsement/acknowledgment on the application for amendment [Exh.25] relating to its receipt is made by appellant' s Advocate. [g] 22-8-2003 :-Application for amendment is allowed. [h] 6-9-2003 :-Amendment is carried out in main petition. [i] Roznama and record do not show that after amendment any notice of Claim Petition was issued. [j] Record also does not disclose that the party was bound over by any order, or a bond to continue to appear even after amendment was allowed and carried out. [k] Treating the notice sent at the time of application for amendment as a notice of petition, the Tribunal has proceeded ex parte against present appellant-original respondent No. 3. 7. It is clear from what this Court has observed and noted as foregoing that no notice of Claim Petition was sent to the original respondent No. 3 present appellant. 8. Delivery of summons without copy of application or without copy of Claim Petition is not a due service. 9. Moreover, copy of Claim Petition or amended petition is not shown to have been served or delivered to the appellant. 10. In these premises, it is a clear case where the appellant ' original respondent No. 3 has been proceeded against, ex parte, but without due service. 11. While opposing the appeal, learned Adv. Mr. Girish Chaubey for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 placed reliance on Section 75 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Perused the same. It has no application. 12. If at all some guidance is to be sought, the same can be sought from Section 169 of the said Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 169 pertains to applicability of CPC to various matters covered therein, but not service of summons. 13. In so far as service of summons is concerned, the appellant has placed reliance on provisions contained in Civil Procedure Code. The form of summons used is also the same as used in civil suits. 14. Sub-section (2) of Section 169 pertains to applicability of CPC to various matters covered therein, but not service of summons. 13. In so far as service of summons is concerned, the appellant has placed reliance on provisions contained in Civil Procedure Code. The form of summons used is also the same as used in civil suits. 14. Though trial of Claim Petition is to be summary, there cannot be dispensation of service of summons, as its failure would lead to non-observance of principles of natural justice, which cannot, in any manner, be dispensed with. 15. Use of procedure for service under CPC is not just a guiding path of procedure, but is mandatory, in absence of any special procedure being provided under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 16. Moreover, under Rule 276 of the Maharashtra Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, various provisions of CPC have been made applicable to the procedure to be adopted by the Tribunal. 17. In so far as present case is concerned, under Clause (b) of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 276, Order-V, Rules 9 to 13 (both inclusive) are made applicable. It is also seen that relevant portion of said Clause (b) further says as follows : (b)...Insofar as the Act and these rules make no provision or make insufficient provision, the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, shall, so far as may be, apply to the proceedings before the Claims Tribunal. 18. This makes it clear that the argument that provisions of CPC do not apply to the trial of Motor Accident Claim Petition and service of summons is untenable. 19. The points of objection to the appeal are, therefore, devoid of any merit. In the result, appeal succeeds. Impugned Award is set aside and Claim Petition is remanded to Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for disposal according to law. 20. Thus, considering the time lag, to avoid further delay, this Court directs as follows: [a] Parties to appear before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on 22nd June, 2009. [b] The Appellant ' Original Respondent No. 3 waives service of the Claim Petition and no fresh service is necessary before the Tribunal. [c] The Appellant-respondent No. 3 undertakes before this Court, and is directed to file the Written Statement from 11th July, 2009. [b] The Appellant ' Original Respondent No. 3 waives service of the Claim Petition and no fresh service is necessary before the Tribunal. [c] The Appellant-respondent No. 3 undertakes before this Court, and is directed to file the Written Statement from 11th July, 2009. [d] The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, to whom the Claim Petition be allotted, would give preference to this case and hear and decide the same as expeditiously as possible, and preferably before 25th August, 2009. [e] The amount of compensation deposited by the appellant shall remain in deposit in this Court for a period of four months, or period of maturity of fixed deposit, whichever is earlier, and upon maturity, it be transferred to Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for disposal according to law, and orders, if any, of this Court. 21. In the circumstances, parties are directed to bear own costs.