Respondents/complainants got their vehicle insured with the petitioners, for the period 22.11.1996 to 21.11.1997.  On 03.07.1997, the vehicle met with an accident.  Respondents/complainants lodged a claim with the petitioner which was repudiated on the ground that the driver of the vehicle did not hold a valid driving licence at the time of  the accident. 

1

Aggrieved by this, respondents filed a complaint before the District Forum. 

The District Forum dismissed the complaint, aggrieved which the respondents filed appeal before the State Commission. 

The State Commission allowed the appeal and directed the petitioners to pay sum of Rs. 63,530/- to the respondents, as assessed by the Surveyor.

          Petitioners being aggrieved, has filed the present revision petition.  While admitting the revision petition, we had directed the petitioners to deposit the awarded amount with the District Forum, within a period of four weeks and the respondents were put at liberty to withdraw the same by furnishing adequate security to the satisfaction of the District Forum.

          The case came up for final hearing on 19.05.2011.  Notices sent to the respondents were received back with postal remarks “incomplete address”.  Counsel for the petitioners was directed to file fresh addresses of the respondents.   It was also further directed that in case the petitioners were unable to ascertain the fresh addresses of the respondents, then the petitioners should move an application for serving the respondents by way of substituted service.  With these directions, the case was adjourned to 19.07.2011. 

2

          Notice sent to respondent No. 1 for 19.07.2011 was received back with postal remarks “not available”.  Respondent No. 2 was reported to be dead.  The case was adjourned to 21.09.2011, to enable the counsel for the petitioners to bring on record, the legal representatives of the deceased respondent No. 2 as well as to move application for substituted service of  the respondents.   Petitioner was advised to think about the indivisibility of spending money on the advertisements  because the same would be more than the sum awarded and that it would amount to chasing bad money with good money. The case was adjourned to 21.09.2011. 

          Notice sent to respondent No. 1 was received back with postal remarks “refused” and he was proceeded ex-parte.  The case was adjourned to today, i.e. 07.12.2011.

          Petitioner has not filed the application to bring on record the legal representatives of respondent No. 2.  The decree passed in favour of the respondents is indivisibile.  We cannot proceed with the revision petition in  the  absence  of  legal  representatives  of  respondent  No. 2.   The

3

revision petition against respondent No. 2 is dismissed, as abated.  Since the decree passed is indivisible, revision petition  against respondent No. 1 is also dismissed.