' The sole point which falls to be considered in this appeal against the order of the learned Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, awarding a she of Rs, 15,000 as compensation to the respondents, on account of the death of their relation, Abdul Hameed, is whether the appellant- Company was duly served with notice of the proceedings before the learned Commissioner. It appears that the Commissioner had sent notice of proceedings to the appellant-Company by registered. Post AID, as provided in Order V, rule 10-A, C. P. C., and had also sent a copy of the notice for service on the appellant-Company through his bailiff. The notice sent through the post has been returned undelivered with the endorsement that the addressee was not available at the address given. Under Rule 10-A, service by post can only be held good if either there is an acknowledgment purporting to be sighed by the defendant of the receipt of the registered communication or an endorsement by a postal employee that the defendant refused to take delivery of the same. In the instant case, neither there is an acknowledgment of service by the appellant nor an endorsement by a postal employee that the appellant had refused to take delivery of the notice.
2. As regards service of the notice by the bailiff, upon which the learned Commissioner has relied, it may be pointed out that the learned Commissioner has entirely lost sight of the provisions of Order V, rule 19, C. P. C., which require the examination of the serving official. Furthermore, the service of the notice does not appear to have been effected in the manner provided in rule 17. As such, there has been no due service upon the appellant-Company.
3. I would accordingly set aside the impugned order of the learned, _ Commissioner and remand the case to him for issuance of fresh notice to the appellant in accordance with law.