The court may condone delay in filing an application based on the age and circumstances of the petitioner, and consider the potential benefit to the claimants in impleading the Insurance Company.

1. Animadverting upon the order dated 21.07.2011 passed in I.A.No.816 of 2010 in MCOP No.128 of 2003, by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, this civil revision petition is focused.

2. Tersely and briefly, the germane facts in a few broad strokes, could be encapsulated thus:

The victim of a motor vehicle accident, namely the respondents herein, filed MCOP claiming compensation. The revision petitioner herein was arrayed as the owner of the vehicle and no Insurance Company was arrayed as respondent. Even though the respondents received notice from the Court relating to MACTOP, the second respondent/Kaliammal did not appear owing to her ill health as alleged by her in the affidavit accompanying the affidavit to get the ex-parte delay of 1400 days condoned. The said application was dismissed and the ex-parte Award already passed in favour of them, now remains.

3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order or dismissal of the I.A.No.816 of 2010, this revision has been filed on various grounds.

4. Citing the owner as an aged lady, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that she could not pursue the matter for herself and she depended upon others, but it appears they left her in the lurch and she was depending upon her son who also died. Her endeavour now is to get the ex-parte Award set aside and take steps to implead the Insurance Company so that she could not be mulcted with the liability of discharging the dues.

Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner, would pray for condoning the delay of 1400 days in filing the application to get the ex-parte Award set aside.

5. The point for consideration is as to whether the lower Court unjustifiably dismissed the application to get the delay condoned?

6. Trite, the proposition of law is that if the vehicle concerned is insured with an Insurance Company, then the Insurance Company would bear the burden of discharging the Award. But in this case, unfortunately, it appears the said fact was not taken note of by the claimants and the owner also did not take effective steps to inform the Tribunal about it. The fact remains that the revision petitioner is a lady aged 66 years and there is nothing to indicate that she was capable of independently looking after her affairs.

7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner also would appropriately and appositely highlight the point that the lady was depending upon her only son, who also died in the meanwhile. Considering all these facts, the Tribunal could have condoned the delay, but it appears the lower Court took a strict view of the matter. Over and above that, if the Insurance Company is added after setting aside the ex-parte Award, and thereafter, if any Award is passed, the claimants also would be benefited, because they could easily recover the compensation amount from the Insurance Company.

8. Taking into consideration the pros and cons of the matter, I am of the view that the delay could condoned and accordingly, the delay is condoned by allowing the I.A. after setting aside the order dated 21.07.2011 passed by the Tribunal, subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only), by the revision petitioner to the claimants, within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such compliance with this matter, the I.A. for setting aside the ex-parte Award shall be taken up and dealt with as per law, and in the event of the ex-parte Award being set aside, the MCOP shall be disposed of within a period of three months thereafter.

Accordingly, this civil revision petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.