JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of CPC, praying to set aside the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Krishnagiri, dated 16.12.2020 in I.A.No.2 of 2020 in M.C.O.P.No.821 of 2013 and allow the above Civil Revision Petition.)

The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Motor Vehicles Claims Tribunal, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner to condone the delay of 61 days in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte award passed against the petitioner.

2. The respondents herein filed a Motor Vehicles Claim petition seeking compensation for the death of one Dhandapani, who is the husband of the first respondent, father of the respondents 2 to 4 and son of the respondents 5 and 6. The petitioner herein is the owner cum driver of the offending vehicle. In the claim petition, the Tribunal passed an ex-parte award against the petitioner on 14.07.2014 due to non appearance of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner filed an application to set aside the ex-parte award on 14.10.2015 with a petition to condone the delay of 61 days in filing the application seeking to set aside the ex-parte award. The Tribunal dismissed the condone delay petition and aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that at the relevant point of time, the petitioner was unable to attend the Court due to sudden illness and his absence was not wilful one.

4. From the impugned order, it appears that the petition filed by the petitioner to set aside the ex-parte award was returned and the same was represented with a delay of 1343 days. It is also seen that the petition to condone delay in representing the returned papers was allowed on payment of cost and therefore, the condone delay petition was taken up for consideration.

5. In the impugned order, the Tribunal held that the petitioner has not taken diligent steps for representing the returned papers. It was stated that the petitioner entered appearance in execution petition as early as on 14.11.2019. However, he failed to represent the returned papers. The said reasoning given by the Tribunal for dismissing the condone delay petition is not acceptable to this Court for the simple reason that the delay of 1343 days in representing the papers was already condoned and in such circumstances, the delay in representing the papers cannot a ground to dismiss the application filed to condone delay in filing the application under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC.

6. In the affidavit filed in support of condone delay petition it was asserted by the petitioner that at the relevant point of time, he was affected with sudden illness and hence he could not contact his counsel and attend the Court.

7. Having regard to the fact that the delay in filing petition to set aside the ex-parte award is only 61 days, this Court is inclined to take a liberal view of the matter and condone the delay, especially, in the light of the fact, the delay in representation was already condoned.

8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed on condition that the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the credit of MCOP.No.821 of 2013 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge, Krishnagiri) within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The amount to be deposited by the petitioner shall be treated as a part of the award amount and the respondents are entitled to withdraw the same by making appropriate application.

9. If the petitioner fails to deposit the amount within time stipulated, the Civil Revision Petition shall stand automatically dismissed. In the event of petitioner making a deposit of Rs.50,000/- within time stipulated, the Civil Revision Petition shall stand allowed and the Tribunal is directed to take up the petition filed under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC and dispose of the same in accordance with law. No cost