JUDGMENT P.K. Lohra, J. - Appellant-non-complainant has preferred this appeal under Order 43, Rule 1(d) CPC to challenge order dated 15.03.2018, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balotra (for short, 'learned Tribunal'). The learned Tribunal, by the order impugned, rejected the application of appellant under Order 9, Rule 13 read with section 151 CPC for setting aside ex-parte judgment and award dated 12.12.2014, passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No.108/2010. 2. The facts, in brief, giving rise to this appeal, are that claimants-respondent Nos.1 & 2 filed a petition against appellant and respondent Nos.3 to 5 under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'Act') before learned Tribunal, interalia, claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 30,11,000/- in respect of accidental death of Lakh Singh. As per version of the respondent-claimants, truck with trolly bearing registration No.RJ-04-RA-0110 was driven by its driver rashly and negligently and when the same hit motorcycle of Lakh Singh, he fell down and suffered grave and serious injuries and ultimately succumbed to injuries. The appellant was impleaded as party in the capacity of registered owner of the vehicle and respondent No.3 as driver of the vehicle whereas respondent No.4 Arjun Singh, who allegedly purchased the vehicle, was also arrayed. Respondent No.5- Insurance Company was impleaded because the vehicle was insured with it. The learned Tribunal issued notices to the appellant and other non-claimants. The notices issued to the appellant were served by affixation and as per report of Process Server, his wife refused to accept the notices. The refusal by wife of the appellant is also verified by Up-Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat concerned. Considering the report of Process Server, learned Tribunal found service of notices on appellant sufficient and proceeded ex-parte. Upon conclusion of the trial, learned Tribunal finally adjudicated the claim and quantified compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,79,000/-. The liability to pay compensation was fastened on the appellant and driver of the vehicle while exonerating the insurer. The learned Tribunal found that the insured has violated the terms of insurance policy, and therefore, insurer is not liable to pay compensation. At the behest of appellant, an endeavor was made before learned Tribunal for setting aside ex-parte judgment and award by laying application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC. The application is contested by opposite parties and finally learned Tribunal, by the order impugned, declined the prayer of appellant. 3. At the behest of appellant, an endeavor was made before learned Tribunal for setting aside ex-parte judgment and award by laying application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC. The application is contested by opposite parties and finally learned Tribunal, by the order impugned, declined the prayer of appellant. 3. At the threshold, when the matter came up before the Court, notices were issued to the respondents. Upon service of notices on behalf of respondent No.4, Mr. B.R. Bishnoi appeared whereas Mr. Suniel Purohitt appeared for respondent No.5. However, nobody appeared on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 despite service. It is in that background, the Court issued fresh notices to respondent Nos.1 to 3 for final disposal of the appeal at the admission stage. The notices for final disposal at admission stage are duly served on respondent Nos.1 to 3 but despite service nobody has appeared on their behalf to contest the appeal. 4. I have heard Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit and Mr. Suniel Purohitt appearing for rival parties and perused the material available on record. 5. The precise contention of the appellant is that he was unaware about pending proceedings before learned Tribunal and on the crucial day when notices were allegedly offered to his wife, he was at Mumbai. It is also submitted by learned counsel that although affixation of notices is verified by Up-Sarpanch but prior to that Sarpanch has issued a clarification that appellant is permanently residing at Mumbai. In substance, the submission of Mr. Rajpurohit is confined to non-service/improper service of notices. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. Suniel Purohitt, contends that improper or irregular service of notices or summons cannot be cited as a ground for setting aside ex-parte judgment. Mr. Purohitt has placed heavy reliance on second proviso to Rule 13 of Order 9 CPC. 7. I have bestowed my consideration to the arguments advanced at the Bar. 8. Well, it is true that learned Tribunal has presumed service of notices on appellant by relying on the report of Process Server, which is duly acknowledged by Up-Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat concerned but then neither the Process Server nor the Up-Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat was examined before learned Tribunal. 8. Well, it is true that learned Tribunal has presumed service of notices on appellant by relying on the report of Process Server, which is duly acknowledged by Up-Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat concerned but then neither the Process Server nor the Up-Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat was examined before learned Tribunal. That apart, the report of Process Server, duly supported by Up-Sarpanch dated 04.06.2013, is in contradiction to the report of Sarpanch dated 19.01.2013, which is scribed on the notices issued to appellant for date of hearing of 29.01.2013. Normally, if there is lis between two parties then it is expected of the Court concerned to decide the matter after bi-partite hearing and when substantial justice is pitted against technicalities it should receive precedence. Moreover, in the backdrop of facts and circumstances of the case, wherein insurer is absolved of its liability to pay compensation and the entire liability to pay compensation has been fastened on the appellant, it would be a travesty of justice if the ex-parte award is allowed to be implemented. It is also noteworthy that despite service, nobody has appeared on behalf of respondent-claimants to contest the appeal. In view thereof, I feel persuaded to accept this appeal. 9. Accordingly, the instant appeal is allowed and impugned order passed by learned Tribunal is quashed and set aside and the ex-parte judgment and award passed against appellant is also set aside subject to payment of cost of Rs. 5000/- by the appellant. 10. The amount of cost may be deposited by the appellant with the District Legal Service Authority, Balotra within four weeks from today. 11. The learned Tribunal is also expected to proceed with trial of the aforesaid claim case de novo after recording its satisfaction about deposition of the cost with District Legal Service Authority, Balotra. Considering a very vital fact that claim was laid in the year 2010 the learned Tribunal may decide the claim afresh as expeditiously as possible.