COMMON ORDER

These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed to set aside the order dated 02.09.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, VI Small Causes Court, Chennai, in MP.Nos.283, 284 and 285 of 2016 in E.P.No.725

of 2015 in MCOP.No.547 of 2011.

2. Before the tribunal, MCOP.No.547 of 2011 was filed by the first respondent herein /Decree holder claiming the compensation for the grievous injuries sustained and damaged to properties suffered in the road accident occurred on 12.03.2009 at about 12.45 p.m., near Vadamalpet Village out skirts on the Puthur -Rnigunda High Ways Road in Andhra Prades. The bus owned by the Transport Corporation, Andhra Pradesh was driven by the second respondent herein in a rash and negligent manner. The petitioner is the insurer of the first respondent's vehicle. Further, in spite of several opportunities was given by the tribunal, the respondents in MCOP.No,547 of 2011 have not filed their counter objection, hence, they were remained set ex-parte and award was passed on 08.10.2014. Thereafter, the claimant has preferred E.P.No.725 of 2015. After receipt of the notice of execution proceedings, the 3rd respondent /Insurance Company filed a petitions under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, prayed to condone the delay of 424 days in filing the petition and to set aside the ex-parte award dated 08.10.2014 passed in MCOP.No547 of 2011 and to set aside the ex-parte dated 08.10.2014 passed in MCOP.No.547 of 2011 and to stay the execution of the decree passed in MCOP.No.547 of 2011 dated 08.10.2014. The said petitions were strongly objected by the claimant stating that having receipt of the notice, the respondents have not filed their counter objection in MCOP inspite of time was granted by the Tribunal and thereafter, they were remained set ex-parte on earlier occasion on 27.04.2011. So, the respondents in MCOP proceedings are aware of the entire proceedings, however, they have not filed their counter objection now, the Insurance Company filed these petitions as such is not permissible and the delay also not property explained. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the petitions filed by the Insurance Company.

3. On hearing both sides, the trial Court had dismissed the petitions, held that the petitioner has not filed counter objection in the MCOP

proceedings and also not properly explained in respect of delaypetition. 4. Challenging the said findings, the petitioner/Insurance Company have filed these Civil Revision Petitions before this Court.

5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/Insurance Company submitted that the revision petitioner has not filed counter objection before the tribunal for the reason that they could not obtained necessary particulars in respect of the accident. Further, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the absence of file counter, the petitioner was remained exparte in the MCOP proceedings and without giving opportunity to the petitioner , the tribunal passed the award is erroneous one. Hence, he prayed to allow these petitions.

6. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent submitted that the revision petitioner/Insurance Company is aware of the MCOP proceedings and sufficient time was granted for filing counter but the petitioner/Insurance Company has not utilized the said opportunities. Hence, the trial Court has rightly appreciated the facts and dismissed the petitions.

Hence, he prayed to dismissal of these petitions.

7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent.

8. Considering the both side submissions, on perusal of the records, it reveals that MCOP.No.547 of 2011 was filed by claimant for recovery of compensation and accident said to be committed by the second respondent herein. Further, the vehicle of the first respondent/claimant was insured by the Insurance company/3rd respondent/ petitioner herein. The main contention of the revision petitioner is that they could not aware of the MCOP proceedings but as per the submission ma