FAO No.1613 of 2007(O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... CM No.8303-CII of 2007 in FAO No.1613 of 2007 (O&M) Decided on : August 07, 2009 Ujagar Singh ... Applicant-Appellant VERSUS Lakhmi Chand and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.G.S.Nagra, Advocate for the applicant-Appellant. Mr.R.S.Longia, Advocate for respondent No.1. A.N.JINDAL, J.- This appeal is directed against the award dated 10.9.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra, whereby, the claimant – respondent No.1 Lakhmi Chand was awarded a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- as compensation for the injuries suffered by him. The appeal is accompanied by an application under the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 1169 days in filing the appeal. It has been averred in the application that the applicant – appellant moved an application for setting aside the exparte award on 6.11.2004 when the execution was filed by the Insurance Company to recover the amount from him and the said application was dismissed by the Tribunal on 3.2.2007. Thus, it is contended that there are sufficient grounds FAO No.1613 of 2007(O&M) [ 2 ] for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Heard. The claim petition was filed against the appellant and others on 30.7.1999, wherein, all the respondents were served. Appellant Ujagar Singh and respondent Mewa Singh (both respondents in the claim petition) filed joint written statement contesting the claim petition. However, they did not lead any evidence and were proceeded exparte. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the appellant was not aware of the claim petition. Anyway, the exparte award was passed on 10.9.2003 and the application for setting aside the same was moved on 7.12.2004 (i.e. after a considerable delay), which was dismissed on 3.2.2007. The instant appeal was filed on 21.2.2007. No explanation is forthcoming as to why not the dismissal of the application for setting aside the exparte award, was challenged in any court of competent jurisdiction by way of an appeal or revision. Dismissal of the said application cannot be a ground for condoning the delay of 1169 days in challenging the impugned award. As such, there are no sufficient grounds to condone the delay. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal also fails. August 07, 2009 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE