Hon'ble BHATTACHARYA, Actg. C.J.—This Appeal is at the instance of the owner of a vehicle and is directed against the order dated February 11, 1988 passed by the Motor Accident Clams Tribunal No.1 (Main) at Ahmedabad in MACP No.41 of 1986, disposing of an application for compensation under Section 110-A of the Old Motor Vehicles Act by awarding a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation with costs and interest @ 9% per annum on Rs.20,000/- from the date of filing the petition till payment. Being dissatisfied, the Union of India, the owner of the vehicle, has come up with the present appeal. 2. It appears from record that before the Tribunal below, the owner of the vehicle neither appeared nor did it contest at the time of trial. The learned Tribunal below on the basis of ex-parte materials on record was satisfied that due to rash and negligent driving on the part of driver of the vehicle, the victim was injured and awarded the compensation. 3. Although in the memorandum of appeal, one of the grounds taken was that there was no due service of summons upon Union of India, as the service of summons was effected on the Collector of the District, who cannot lawfully represent Union of India, Mr.Dave, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant after going through the materials on record did not press this point, as it appears from the acknowledgment card of service through registered post that the summons was served on the Chief Secretary, Union of India, New Delhi. Mr.Dave fairly did not press the point any further. 4. The next point argued by Mr.Dave before me was that at the relevant point of time, the vehicle was not even in the State of Gujarat, and as such, the order passed by the Tribunal should be set aside. 5. In my opinion, inspite of due service of summons the appellant having decided not to controvert the allegation contained in the claim application, they are estopped from raising this plea before the Appellate Court for the first time such plea being basically a question of fact. Therefore, the aforesaid submission of Mr.Dave is not tenable in the eye of law as his client preferred not to file any written statement controverting the allegation of the accident. 6. Therefore, the aforesaid submission of Mr.Dave is not tenable in the eye of law as his client preferred not to file any written statement controverting the allegation of the accident. 6. Thus, both the points taken in this memorandum of appeal are devoid of any substance and I, consequently, dismiss this appeal. There will be, however, no order as to costs.