JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. S.S. Sharma, learned senior counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S.K. Medhi, learned Central Government Counsel, appearing for the respondent No.1. None appears for the respondent Nos.2 & 3, despite service of notice. The names of the respondent Nos.4, 5 & 6 were struck off vide order dated 26.06.2015. 2. This appeal is filed against the order dated 07.04.2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (FTC), Cachar at Silchar as Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, rejecting an application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC to set aside an ex parte award dated 18.12.2006 passed in MAC Case No.938/2003. 3. The MAC Case No.938/2003 was filed by the Union of India. 4. Records of the MAC Case No.938/2003 go to show that two Branches of National Insurance Company Limited, namely, (i) National Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office - 3/90 Kanak Circus, New Delhi and (ii) National Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office C-1/03, Lakshmi Tower, Azadpur, New Delhi, were arrayed as respondent Nos.6 & 7, respectively, in the said case. The present appeal is not preferred by the aforesaid two Branches and they were not even made party respondents in this appeal. The present appeal is preferred by the National Insurance Company Limited through the Guwahati Regional Office. 5. The application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC read with Section 151 CPC was also not filed by the aforesaid 2 (two) respondents in the MAC Case No.938/2003 but was filed by the National Insurance Company Limited through the Divisional Manager, Silchar. The Divisional Office of National Insurance Company Limited, Silchar was also not a party to the proceedings in MAC Case No.938/2003. 6. In the petition filed, there is no categorical statement that the respondent Branches of the National Insurance Company Limited at Delhi did not receive any summons. The postal acknowledgments that are available in the records are in very bad shape. There is one postal acknowledgement, which is also torn and is referred to as Exhibit-5 in the impugned order, with address of one of the two Branches which are parties in MAC Case No.938/2003. The learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, in his order dated 11.06.2004, had recorded that notices were served on all the opposite parties by registered post but they had not taken any steps. 7. The learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, in his order dated 11.06.2004, had recorded that notices were served on all the opposite parties by registered post but they had not taken any steps. 7. As the Branches of the Insurance Company, who were parties to the proceedings in the MAC case, did not raise any grievance that they had not received any summons, I am of the considered opinion that no interference is called for with the impugned order. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. No cost.