JUDGMENT 1. - Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner who is vehicle owner of truck No. R]Y 9801. On 15.12.1992, at 8.00 A.M., the driver of the truck owned by the petitioner hit jeep No. RST 6596 in which one Mangilal who was going to jodhpur in the above jeep died on the spot. On that date, driver of the truck was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently and hit the jeep No. RST 6596. The legal representatives of late Mangilal filed claim petition in-which they claimed compensation in the sum of Rs. 4,83,000/- against petitioner Narayan Lal, driver Trilok Chand and insurer Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. After trial, the Claim Tribunal passed impugned award dated 24.3.2000 for compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- in favour of the claimant-respondents only against the petitioner. The said award was passed in his absence because as per the Claim Tribunal the petitioner refused to take notice, therefore, the Claim Tribunal proceeded ex parte against him for which order was passed on 13.10.1997. 2. The petitioner filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13, C.P.C., before the Claim Tribunal for setting aside the ex parte award dated 24.3.2000, in which, the petitioner submitted that no notice was served upon him nor he refused to accept notice, therefore, the report given by the post-man upon the registered letter is false. It is also stated in the application that the insurance company wrongly mentioned in its reply that the vehicle truck No. RJY 9801 was not insured. The Claim Tribunal rejected the said application filed by the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 13, C.P.C., vide impugned order dated 10.4.2002 against which the petitioner has preferred this writ petition and also challenged judgment and award dated 24.3.2000 passed in Claim Case No. 252/1998. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that notices were not served upon the petitioner, therefore, the order of proceeding ex parte against the petitioner was illegally passed by the Claim Tribunal. Further, it is submitted that award has been passed upon wrong facts narrated by the insurance company that the truck was not insured. While inviting attention towards insurance policy Annex. 6 filed alongwith Annex. 7 it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the truck No. RJY 9801 was insured under the insurance policy Annex. Further, it is submitted that award has been passed upon wrong facts narrated by the insurance company that the truck was not insured. While inviting attention towards insurance policy Annex. 6 filed alongwith Annex. 7 it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the truck No. RJY 9801 was insured under the insurance policy Annex. 6 which commenced from 16.11.1992 up to 15.11.1993 but this aspect of the matter has not been brought to the notice of the Claim Tribunal, therefore, the Claim Tribunal exonerated the insurance company from the liability. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the impugned judgment and award dated 24.3.2000, so also, order dated 10.4.2002 deserve to be quashed on both the above grounds. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents vehemently argued that repeatedly the Court sent summons to the petitioner but they were not served because the petitioner refused to accept the notices, therefore, there was no option left with the Claim Tribunal in proceed ex parte for non-appearance of the petitioner. With regard to contention of the petitioner that insurance company wrongly took plea that the vehicle was not insured with it at the relevant time, it is submitted that insurance policy Annex. 6 and receipt Annex. 7 speak loudly that the vehicle was insured with effect from 16.11.1992 and remained in existence up to 15.11.1993 but the accident took place on 15.11.1992 on which date the vehicle in question was not insured with the insurance company. It is also pointed out by learned counsel for the respondents that to mislead this Court, in para 2 of the writ petition, the petitioner wrongly stated that accident took place on 15.12.1992 whereas the accident took place on 15.11.1992. Therefore, it is prayed that this writ petition may be dismissed. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused entire record of the case. 6. It is obvious from the record that upon the envelope in which summons was sent to the petitioner there is report of refusal to accept, therefore, the Claim Tribunal relied upon the said report for proceeding ex parte against the petitioner. The petitioner raised voice that notice were not sent to him but no evidence was produced by him to substantiate his argument, therefore, there is no substance in the argument of the petitioner that notices were not sent to him. The petitioner raised voice that notice were not sent to him but no evidence was produced by him to substantiate his argument, therefore, there is no substance in the argument of the petitioner that notices were not sent to him. 7. With regard to second argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner that vehicle RJY 9801 was insured with the insurance company, there is complete fallacy in the argument of the petitioner because upon perusal of the insurance policy it is abundantly clear that the vehicle was insured for the period from 16.11.1992 and accident took place on 15.11.1992. Therefore, the Claim Tribunal rightly gave Finding that on the relevant date the vehicle was not insured with the Insurance Company. 8. In view of the above, in my opinion, there is no error in the order impugned passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Rajsamand while rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 13, C.P.C. In this view of the matter, there is no force in this writ petition.Hence, this writ petition is dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******