IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 133 OF 2008 MR. AFRONIO PAULINO PEREIRA ... Petitioner Versus STEPHEN FERNANDES AND 2 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. V. A. Lawande, Advocate for the petitioner. Coram:- S.A. BOBDE, J. Date:- 18th April, 2008 P.C. The petitioner has challenged the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Margao, refusing to condone the delay of 7 years and 9 months in applying for setting aside the order of dismissal. 2. The petitioner's claim petition was dismissed on 1.12.97. It appears that on the same day, an application for setting aside the dismissal was filed. But, admittedly, nothing was done by petitioner or his Advocate thereafter. Eventually, sometime in the year 2005, the petitioner applied for setting aside the dismissal. 3. The main ground urged by the petitioner, as sufficient cause for codonation of delay, is that he had gone for better prospects to the Gulf from the year 1996 till he returned in the year 2005. The petitioner, however, did not offer any proof in support of this allegation. In fact, the trial Court has observed that the petitioner did not produce his passport on record which would have shown the truth or otherwise of this statement. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the trial Court ought to have believed the petitioner's case. However, it is difficult to accept the contention that the trial Court ought to have accepted the petitioner's explanation as sufficient cause in the absence of any evidence on record. The learned Counsel submitted that a photocopy of the passport is now produced at Exhibit "C" to this petition and it does not show any entry of the petitioner of return before 2005. However, it is clear that there is an entry of the petitioner's arrival in Mumbai on 21.3.02. There is, therefore, no merit in this contention. Even, otherwise, if the petitioner had not come to India, it was his duty to pursue the matter by instructing his Advocate from wherever he was. Needless to say, this is not difficult task, having regard to the modern facilities of communication. The petitioner's case for condonation of delay has, therefore, been rightly rejected by the trial Court. The order does not suffer from any error of law apparent on the face of record. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. S.A. BOBDE, J. ssm.