O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition has been preferred challenging the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Special District Court), Dharmapuri dated 01.04.2022 in I.A.No.662 of 2018 in M.C.O.P.No.1858 of 2014.

2. The revision petitioner is the first respondent in the claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.1858 of 2014 filed by the first respondent herein/claimant for claiming compensation for the death of the son of the claimant in a road traffic accident. The revision petitioner/first respondent is the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident and the second respondent herein is the Insurance Company in which the vehicle was insured.

3. After conducting an enquiry, the learned Special District Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Special District Court), Dharmapuri has passed an ex-parte award on 09.03.2015. Subsequently, the revision petitioner who is owner of the vehicle has filed an interlocutory application in I.A.No.662 of 2018 to condone the delay of 988 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex-parte decree. The said application was dismissed. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner has preferred the present revision petition.

4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the claim petition was originally filed before the Sub Court, Dharmapuri; later it was transferred to the Additional District Court, Dharmapuri; and subsequently, it was transferred to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Special District Court), Dharmapuri; since the revision petitioner did not know about the transfer of the proceedings to the Special Tribunal, he could not make his appearance; and hence, it resulted into an ex-parte award; only after he received notice in the proceedings filed by the Insurance Company under Section 174 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, the revision petitioner came to know about the ex-parte award; the learned trial Judge without considering the genuineness of the reasons had chosen to dismiss the petition.

5. On perusal of the records, it is seen that the revision petitioner is the owner of the vehicle and made his appearance as early as in the year 2007 and he has filed his counter. Having participated in the proceedings, he has now filed the petition stating that he did not have knowledge about pending proceedings till he got the notice under Section 174 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

6. In fact, during the pendency of the proceedings, the claimant was absent and the petition was dismissed for default as against her. Subsequently, she filed a petition to condone the delay in filing the petition to restore the claim petition. In those proceedings also, the present revision petitioner participated and filed his counter statement. That being the case, the petitioner cannot say that he has no knowledge about the pending proceedings. The proceedings were not transferred to any other place and it was transferred only to the Special Court within Dharmapuri District, after the Special Court was constituted. Whenever, the Special Court is formed in a District and in the same Court complex, when parties appear before the old Court, they will be informed about the transfer of the proceedings to the Special Court. Even now the Special Court would have sent notice to all the parties concerned after the case was taken on file there. The revision petitioner has denied that he did not have knowledge about the pending proceedings in the Special Court. He subjected himself as P.W.1 and his evidence are also found to be not satisfactory in proving the reasons stated by him. Since the delay is exorbitant and the reasons stated by the revision petitioner is also not proved to be true and satisfactory, the learned trial Judge had chosen to dismiss the petition.

7. It is to be noted that award amount has already been deposited by the second respondent/Insurance Company and that has been disbursed to the first respondent/claimant as well. After having allowed the petition to such a long stage, the petitione