- (1.) Petitioner has preferred this writ petition for assailing the order dated 19th of June 2013, whereby his application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside ex-parte award was rejected by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pali (for short, 'learned Tribunal'). That apart, the petitioner has also challenged order dated 28th of October 2010 whereby ex-parte proceedings were taken against him and the ex-parte award dated 29th of June 2011 passed by the learned Tribunal.
(2.) The facts, in brief, are that respondentclaimants filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988. In the claim petition, besides the petitioner, registered owner of the offending vehicle respondent No.2 and Insurance Company respondent No.1 were also impleaded as party non-applicants. After service of notice upon petitioner, nobody appeared on his behalf and therefore learned Tribunal proceeded ex-parte against him on 28th of October 2010. Thereafter during the entire trial of the claim case, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Tribunal finally adjudicated the claim vide its Award dated 29th of June 2011 awarding compensation to the respondent-claimants for a sum of Rs.1,75,000 with interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. The learned Tribunal, while deciding Issue No.2 found that there was clear violation of the Insurance Policy as the driver of the offending vehicle was not in possession of a driving licence exonerated the Insurance Company in the final award while directing it to first pay the amount of compensation to the respondent-claimants and then recover the same from the petitioner.
(3.) In his application for setting aside ex-parte award, petitioner has averred that he instructed one counsel from Pali to appear on his behalf in the matter but he did not appear and therefore learned Tribunal proceeded ex-parte and ultimately passed the impugned award. Upon consideration of the application, the learned Tribunal has found that non-appearance of the petitioner despite service was deliberate and the same cannot be excused. Moreover, the learned Tribunal has also observed that application for setting aside ex-parte award has been filed after expiry of 30 days and the petitioner has not made any endeavour for seeking condonation of delay inasmuch as requisite application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has not been filed.;