Court upheld rejection of delay in filing as insufficient grounds were provided.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner challenges Ext.P6 order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode, in I.A. Nos. 1 and 2 of

2023 in O.P.(MV) No.504 of 2014.

2. Through the said order, the application preferred by the petitioner to condone a delay of 2324 days in filing an application to set aside the exparte award was rejected. The Tribunal found that there was no case for the petitioner therein, that he did not receive the notice of the case from the Tribunal and that for the alleged plea of illness, no documents were produced. The award was passed as early as 24.10.2016, and consequently, the revenue recovery proceedings were also initiated. The Tribunal found that no sufficient reason was stated for the condonation of delay, and finding that there was no merit in the applications, rejected the same.

3. This Court, upon admission of the writ petition on

19.12.2024, granted a stay on condition that the petitioner deposit an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) before the Tribunal on or before 10.01.2025. The petitioner did not comply with the same, and again an opportunity was granted by this Court on 27.10.2025 to comply with the order within a week. The petitioner did not comply with the same, as the learned counsel submitted that there was no instruction as to whether the order was complied with or not.

4. This Court passed an order on 11.11.2025 directing the Registry to obtain a report from the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode, as to whether the petitioner has complied with the interim order passed by this Court on 19.12.2024. A report was sent by the Tribunal on 17.11.2025, submitting that no deposit was made as directed by this Court. Accordingly, this Court vacated the interim order on 06.01.2026. Thereafter, the petitioner paid the amount, and this Court, by order dated 22.01.2026, extended the stay and directed the petitioner to make a further payment of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only). The said order has not been complied with.

5. The Tribunal had rightly found that no reason/cause, much less any sufficient cause, was shown for allowing the applications to condone the delay of 2324 days. There is no plea that the petitioner did not receive the notice from the Tribunal concerned. The alleged plea of illness was not substantiated by any records.

Given the above, I do not find anything illegal in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, warranting interference. Accordingly, the original petition has no merit, and the same is dismissed.

Sd/-