The court emphasized the need to prove sufficient cause for setting aside ex parte awards and highlighted the importance of applying the law of limitation with rigor to ensure fairness and speedy trial.

Sanjay Kumar Gupta, J.

These civil revisions have been filed against the order dated 25.04.2015 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Reasi in case titled Gulshama Begum and others v. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited and others, and in case titled Shafiqa Begum and another v. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited and in case titled Tajo Begum and others v. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited and others whereby the applications of the petitioner for setting aside of the ex parte Awards dated 04.11.2013 & 25.11.2013 have been dismissed.

2. Since common questions of law and facts arise for consideration in these petitions, they were heard analogously and are being decided by this common order.

3. The facts leading to filing of these petitions briefly stated are that the impugned order is against the law, hence the same is liable to be set aside. The respondents /claimants filed claim petitions before the learned MACT, Reasi with regard to death of Sh. Abdul Rahim, Sh. Mushtaq Ahmed and Sh. Abdul Gaffar, who died in an accident on 14.10.2011. The appellant after receipt of notice of filing the claim petitions from the learned Tribunal had engaged the counsel namely Sh. Diwakar Sharma, Advocate as counsel who also filed the objections to the claim petitions. In the objections, in addition to other factual pleas, have taken a plea of validity of driving licence of the driver of the alleged offending vehicle which was commercial vehicle (TATA Sumo) but was possessing driving licence to drive Motorcycle with gear and LMV only. The learned counsel after filing the objections absented from the proceedings before the learned Tribunal as a result the ex parte order was passed against the appellant and on coming to know about the ex parte proceedings an application was filed through another counsel namely Mr. Akhil Prashev, Advocate for contesting the cases on behalf of the appellant company. The said application was allowed and the ex parte proceedings against the petitioner company were set aside. It is further stated that after engaging another counsel made communication to him through his mobile but he assured that the cases are going on well and the appellant-company will be provided the dates when the presence of its law officer was required for his statement in support of its defence. It was also brought to the notice of the learned counsel engaged through its communication with Investigation report that the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle is not valid for the purpose of driving of offending vehicle hence requested for taking appropriate steps for summoning of the witnesses so that the appellant-company be able to establish and prove the statutory defences. It is further stated that the counsel who was engaged by the appellant-company advised the officer/official of the appellant-company that as the matter of fact that the case is of civil nature hence their attendance is not required before the learned Tribunal and when their presence is required he will inform. But to the surprise of this appellant the counsel had neither informed nor responded any letters of the appellant nor took the defence as informed to him along with record. Hence the company is burdened with the liability to pay compensation by means of ex parte award although it had none. It is further stated that the Law Officer of the appellant company on coming to know of the ex parte award through Sh. Deepak Atri, Advocate who was appointed as counsel for the petitioner-company for contesting the cases of the company at Reasi as the earlier counsel engaged stopped coming to the Court at Reasi because of some domestic problems, as Mr. Atri received the notice in execution petition of the ex parte award from the learned Tribunal. He immediately informed the appellant company and appl