The petitioner failed to demonstrate sufficient grounds for condoning the delay in filing an application to set aside an ex-parte award, leading to dismissal of the petition.

JUDGMENT :

Satyen Vaidya, J.

By way of instant petition, petitioner has assailed order dated 14.03.2019, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P., in CMA No.62/2015, whereby the application of the petitioner herein for condonation of delay in filing application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure , (for short, “the Code) has been dismissed.

2. The respondent herein filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the petitioner herein and thereby sought compensation for injuries suffered by him in motor vehicle accident involving bus No. HP-38-3735. It was alleged that on 11.03.2003 at about 6:30 PM when the petitioner was riding his scooter from Jassur to Nurpur in District Kangra, at place near Niyazpur Chowk, bus No. HP-38-3735 hit the scooter of the petitioner. It was also alleged that at the time of accident, the bus was being driven by petitioner herein in a rash and negligent manner.

3. Learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (for short, “the Tribunal”) allowed the petition of respondent herein vide award dated 18.01.2007 and awarded compensation of Rs.1,60,568/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition. The liability was fastened upon petitioner herein.

4. The petitioner had been proceeded against ex-parte by learned Tribunal on 16.06.2004. Thereafter, the entire proceedings in MAC Petition No.59-N/II/2003 were taken ex-parte and finally the ex-parte award was passed.

5. The petitioner herein filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code on 04.03.2015 with a prayer to set aside ex-parte ward dated 18.01.2007 passed against him by learned Tribunal. Along with said application, petitioner herein also filed a separate application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code.

6. Both the applications were contested by the respondent herein.

7. On 13.01.2016, learned Tribunal framed issues as under:

“1. Whether there are reasonable grounds to allow the application which has been filed by the applicant under section 5 of Indian Limitation Act for condonation of delay? OPA

2. Whether the application is not maintainable in the present form?OPR.

3. Relief.”

8. Subsequently, on 05.12.2018, an additional issue was also framed as issue No.2-A in following terms:

“2-A Whether the applicant has got sufficient reason to set aside the exparte award dated 18.01.07 passed in MACT petition No.59-N/II/2003? OPA”

9. While passing the final order, learned Tribunal has held that the question of deciding application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code would arise in case the application for condonation of delay was allowed.

10. Learned Tribunal vide order dated 14.03.2019 dismissed the application for condonation of delay of the petitioner herein by holding that the petitioner herein had failed to prove any sufficient cause for not filing the application within limitation. It was specifically noticed that the petitioner herein in the execution petition was served for 25.11.2014, but he did not appear in the Court. Further, learned Tribunal took note of the fact that even after 25.11.2014, the petitioner herein applied for certified copies of award passed by learned Tribunal on 19.02.2015, which was ready on 26.02.2015 and still the applications for setting aside ex-parte award as also for condonation of delay were filed on 04.03.2015. Learned Tribunal held that since admittedly the petitioner herein had acquired knowledge of the execution taken against him on 25.11.2014, the limitation to file application for setting aside ex-parte award had expired on 26.12.2014. In this manner, learned Tribunal has found the conduct of the petitioner herein to be remiss and negligent. Thus, learned Tribunal had refused to condone the delay.

11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record carefully.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submi