Explanations for delays in legal proceedings should be considered based on the circumstances of each case, rather than imposed hyper-technical standards.

J U D G M E N T

Petitioner is the additional 4th respondent in OP(MV) No.322/2008. The OP was tried along with OP(MV) No.903/2009. The present original petition is confined to the proceedings in OP(MV) No.322/2008.

2. On 27.03.2013, an ex parte award was passed against the petitioner. He was impleaded in the said proceedings as the RC owner. According to the petitioner, he was abroad and unaware of the proceedings. He came to know about it only in the course of recovery proceedings when notice for recovery was affixed at his residence. Even at that time the petitioner was abroad and the fact of service of notice by affixture was intimated to him by his brother. Accordingly the petitioner filed IA Nos.1336/2018 and 1337/2018 seeking to set aside the ex parte award and to condone the delay in filing the application. The delay involved is almost five years. The Tribunal as per Ext.P15 order dismissed the applications. It is aggrieved thereby that the petitioner is before this Court.

3. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner got himself examined as PW1 and the copy of the passport was marked as Ext.A1. Though through his oral evidence supported by Ext.A1 passport, the petitioner sought to his explanation to his absence in the proceedings and also the delay in filing the applications, the Tribunal was of the opinion that, “it is the fundamental rule that each and every day's delay is to be explained”, that the petitioner was not able to prove that he was abroad for the entire period from 2008-18 viz., the period of commencement of the original petition till the filing of the application to set aside the ex parte award, and accordingly dismissed the applications.

4. As per the award, liability was cast on the petitioner on the finding that the vehicle did not have a valid insurance policy at the relevant time. Before this Court, the petitioner has produced copy of the insurance certificate relating to the vehicle and the driving licence of the second respondent who is impleaded in the proceedings as the driver of the vehicle. The above are to prima facie convince the court that there was a valid insurance for the vehicle and the driver had a valid driving licence, and that the Insurance Company is liable for the award amount. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted before this Court that, without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioner, the petitioner is willing to satisfy the award for the present and that he may be afforded an opportunity to contest the proceedings and establish that he does not have liability to pay any amount. It is prayed that, if ultimately the Tribunal finds that there was a valid insurance policy during the relevant time and that the insurance company is liable to pay the damages, he may be reimbursed by the Insurance Company.

5. The stand of the petitioner as above points to the bona fides of the petitioner. That apart, I am of the opinion that a hyper technical approach seeking explanation of each day's delay ought not to be adopted while considering the delay petition. Ultimately it has been borne in mind that the petitioner does not stand to gain but runs a serious risk by the delay caused in filing the application. The absence of the petitioner at station during the relevant time has been established by his oral evidence supported by Ext.A1 passport. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that an opportunity is to be granted to the petitioner to have the OP(MV)

contested on its merits.

6. Accordingly, the original petition is disposed of as hereunder:-

(1) Ext.P15 order is set aside. I.A. Nos.1336/2018 and 1337/2018 are allowed.

(2) The petitioner shall deposit the award amount with interest and costs before the Tribunal within a period of two months from today.

(3) Notice of such deposit shall be given to all the other parties to the proceedings.

(4) On such deposit, if any request is made by the claimant for release of the amount or any part thereof, the Tribunal may consider such applicati