KARUNANIDHI Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY REP. BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER KUMBAKONAM DIVISIONAL OFFICE THANJAVUR AND R. PANDIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ANIMADVERTING upon the fair and final order dated 16.12.2011 passed in I.A.No.428 of 2011 in MCOP No.230 of 2006, by the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruvarur, this civil revision petition is focussed. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner who would echo the heart burns of his client to the effect that his client being the insured, filed MCOP and got an ex parte award, in view of the fact that the respondent failed to appear before the claims Tribunal. Subsequently E.P. also was filed and in that also they remained ex parte, hence the Court directed the Insurance Company to deposit a sum of Rs.1,10,000/ -. The Insurance Company concerned filed the application to get the delay of 1528 days condoned in filing the application under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC to get set aside the ex parte award. After hearing both sides, the said delay was condoned subject to payment of cost of Rs.2,000/ - payable by the Insurance Company in favour of the claimant.

(2.) BEING aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order in condoning the delay, this revision is focussed. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the claimant is an unfortunate person who sustained injury while travelling in the bus belonging to R2 herein, and R1 being the insurer of the said vehicle, deposited the award amount also. However, simultaneously it filed the aforesaid application to get the delay condoned in filing the application to get the ex parte award set aside. The lower Court without any valid reasons simply condoned the delay.

(3.) THE point for consideration is as to whether there is any perversity or illegality in the order passed by the lower Court in condoning the delay as aforesaid. Trite, the proposition of law, is that if a lower forum condones the delay with an object to give opportunity to the party concerned in the interest of audi alteram partem, normally the High Court will not interfere unless there is perversity or illegality. This is a case relating to accident. In such a case it has to be seen as to whether the Insurance Company deposited the amount or not. The Insurance Company in all fairness deposited the entire award amount and sought for setting aside the ex parte order after condoning the delay in filing such application. The lower Court in its wisdom thought that such opportunity has to be given. The official who examined himself as P.W.1 in the I.A. would detail and delineate that even though the respondent/Insurance Company was in receipt of notice a few days anterior to the first hearing date in MCOP, yet they