ANAND KUMAR SAHU Vs. RANMAT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order dated 02.02.2010 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dindori, in Motor Vehicles Case No. 17/05, whereby the learned Tribunal had dismissed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed on behalf of the applicant/appellant Anand Kumar Sahu for condoning delay in filing and application under order 9 rule 13 C.P.C. for setting aside ex -parte award dated 29 -11 -2006 passed against the appellant.

(2.) IT is matter of record that respondents Ranmat Singh and Ganeshi Bai moved an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act for compensation for the death of their son Bhansingh in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 04.03.2006, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dindori. The claim petition was registered as Claim Case No. 17/2005. At the time of accident, offending vehicle was owned by appellant Anand Kumar Sahu and was being driven by one Jagdish. During the trial by order dated 04.03.2006, learned Tribunal proceeded ex -parte against the owner Anand Kumar Sahu. After the trial, claim petition was allowed vide award dated 29.11.2006 and the vehicle owner Anand Kumar Sahu and driver Jagdish were held jointly and severely liable to pay compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,67,000/ - to the claimants. Respondent No. 3 before the Tribunal, Oriental Insurance Company Limited was exonerated from liability on the ground that on the date of the accident, offending vehicle was not insured with them.

(3.) SINCE , aforesaid application under order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure was time barred, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also moved for condonation of delay. Learned Tribunal by impugned order dated 2.2.2010, dismissed the application for condonation of delay on the ground that since the applicant himself had admitted that notice was served upon him and he had engaged counsel therein, it cannot be said that he was not aware of the proceedings. In these circumstances, learned Tribunal observed that there was no sufficient ground for condonation of delay of three long years. For aforesaid reasons, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was dismissed and by implication application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure also stood dismissed.