JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the order dated 18.11.2011 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajsamand (hereinafter referred to as 'trial court') rejecting the application preferred by the appellant under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. for setting aside the judgment and award dated 12th May, 2004 passed by the Tribunal whereby a compensation of Rs. 95,400/- is awarded to the respondent No. 1 and the appellant was made liable to pay the said compensation. 2. Brief facts of the case are that in an accident, took place on 1.10.1988 involving truck No. DEG 4846, one Pushpa died. Her mother, respondent No. 1 filed a claim petition before the Tribunal wherein the appellant, the driver of the truck and the insurance company were made parties. The claim case remained pending for service upon the driver and owner (appellant) of the truck and the said claim was dismissed by the Tribunal. Later on the claim was restored against the insurance company only and not restored against the driver and owner (appellant). However, the respondent No. 1 has approached this Court by filing a writ petition and this Court has restored the claim petition against the driver and owner (appellant) also and directed to effect substituted service upon the owner (appellant). Even after substituted service, when the appellant failed to put in appearance before the Tribunal, ex-parte proceedings were initiated and ex-parte judgment and decree was passed against the appellant. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that he was not aware about the pendency of the claim petition as no summons were served upon him at any point of time. It is also claimed by learned counsel for the appellant that no proper steps were taken by the claimants to get the service effected upon the appellant and as such the appellant was not given any opportunity to defend the case instituted against him. It is also claimed by learned counsel for the appellant that no proper steps were taken by the claimants to get the service effected upon the appellant and as such the appellant was not given any opportunity to defend the case instituted against him. It is contended that the substituted service upon the appellant also cannot be treated as sufficient service because the newspaper, in which the notices were published, is not having circulation in that area of Delhi where the appellant was residing, therefore, it is claimed by the appellant that since summon upon the appellant was not properly served, it was incumbent upon the learned Tribunal to give an opportunity to the appellant to defend himself by way of setting aside the ex-parte order. Leaned counsel for the appellant has, therefore, prayed for quashing of the impugned order and has further prayed that the application filed by the appellant under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. for setting aside the ex-parte judgment and award dated 12th May, 2004 may be allowed. 4. This court has considered the submissions made on behalf of learned counsel for the appellant and also examined the impugned order dated 18.11.2011. 5. The learned trial court while passing the impugned order has observed that in the instant case, the incident took place twenty three years before. The mother of the deceased, respondent No. 1 filed claim petition in the year 1989 and the summon of the appellant was published in a newspaper circulated in Delhi. The learned trial court has also observed that the substituted service was effected on the appellant as per direction of Rajasthan High Court and in such circumstances, it cannot be said that the notices of the claim petition had not been properly served upon the appellant. It is pertinent to note here that the learned lower Court has also observed that in the claim petition, the same address of the appellant was given as mentioned in the registration certification of the vehicle owned by the appellant and when the service of the summon upon the said address was not carried out then the summon of the claim petition was served upon the appellant by way of publishing notice in the newspaper as per the directions of this Court given in the writ petition filed by respondent No. 1. 6. 6. It is to be noted that even before the court below and this Court, the appellant has not given complete address of his residence and has simply shown himself as resident of New Delhi and this fact itself is sufficient to show that the appellant has not approached the learned lower court as well as this Court with clean hands. 7. In view of above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order dated 18.11.2011 passed by the lower court and hence, the appeal preferred by the appellant, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******