ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. RENUKA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Civil Revision Petition arises out of the order dated 30.04.2013 in I.A. No. 902 of 2012 in M.C.O.P. No. 531 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Principal Sub Court, Kumbakonam.

(2.) The car bearing registration no. MDO 4842 belonging to the Respondent, met with a road accident involving the car bearing registration no. TN 49 X 2583 belonging to one Mr. Ramarajan at about 10.30 p.m. on 17.08.1997 on the Panruti-Kumbakonam Road in front of Gengappa Paper Mill. The Respondent filed the Original Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the damages caused to his car, against the said Mr. Ramarajan in M.C.O.P. No. 531 of 2006 before the Tribunal below. The Petitioner, who was the insurer of the car of the said Mr. Ramarajan at the relevant time, was also made as a party to that proceeding.

(3.) Since neither the vehicle owner nor the insurer appeared before the Tribunal below in M.C.O.P. No. 531 of 2006, they were called absent and an exparte award dated 10.04.2008 was passed directing them jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest thereon at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of Petition till realization with costs. As the amount awarded as compensation was not deposited, the Respondent had filed Execution Petition in E.P. No. 75 of 2012 before the Tribunal below in which attachment was ordered on 22.10.2012. At that stage, the Petitioner filed an application to set aside the exparte award dated 10.04.2008 in M.C.O.P. No. 531 of 2006 passed by the Tribunal below along with the application in I.A. No. 902 of 2012 to condone the delay of 1634 days in filing the same. The Respondent filed a Counter Affidavit and opposed the said application in I.A. No. 902 of 2012 and the Tribunal below found that there was no sufficient cause for condoning the delay and accordingly proceeded to dismiss that application. Aggrieved thereby, the Civil Revision Petition has been preferred by the Petitioner before this Court.