IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 2212 of 2001 (M/S) [ Smt. Santosh Gupta W/o Sri Vimlesh Kumar Gupta R/o 286, Avas Vikas Colony, Hardoi. ...…………. Petitioner Versus 1. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. through its Regional Manager, Haldwani, District Nainital. 2. Smt. Roopwati W/o Sri Harbans Singh R/o Harlalpur, Tehsil Bazpur, District Udham Singh Nagar. 3. Sri Priya Saran Gupta S/o Shri R.D. Gupta R/o Mohalla Copperganj, Distt. Kanpur. 4. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nainital. ...………… Respondents Mr. Anil Kumar Joshi, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Paresh Tripathi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Tumul Nainwal, Advocate for respondent No. 2. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing the orders dated 11.05.1999, 26.08.2000 and 12.04.2001, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Special 2 Judge (E.C. Act), Nainital, in M.A.C. Case No. 18 of 1998. 3) Brief facts of the case are that an accident took place on 29.12.1997, in which the claimant’s (respondent No. 2) mother died after getting dashed by Truck bearing registration No. UP 30 A / 3093, owned by the present petitioner, which was said to have been insured with the respondent No. 1. A claim of Rs. 5,00,000/- was made by the claimant (present respondent No. 2) before the Tribunal. Said claim petition was contested by the insurance company. The owners of the vehicle (present petitioner and respondent No. 3) also put up their appearance in the case and sought several adjournments. However, they did not file the written statement. Finally, the case proceeded ex-parte against them on 06.09.1999. On the basis of pleadings of the contesting parties issues were framed, and the Tribunal after recording the evidence, decided the claim petition vide its order dated 26.08.2000, whereby Rs. 75,000/- were awarded as compensation which is directed to be paid by the owners of the vehicle (present petitioner and respondent No. 3). While deciding said claim petition, the Tribunal found that the vehicle was being driven without valid license. Apart from this, it is further found by the Tribunal that the driving license produced before it was fake. 3 4) After said award was passed, the petitioner moved an application after eight months, under Order 9 Rule XIII of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (registered as Misc. Case No. 04 of 2001) for setting aside the award passed by the Tribunal. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal rejected the same. 5) I have gone through the detailed order passed by the Tribunal, wherein the reasons are given for not setting aside the ex-parte award. It is pertinent to mention here that petitioner had knowledge of the proceedings of the claim petition, as applications were moved on her behalf, for adjournment. In the circumstances, the application for setting aside the ex-parte award under Order 9 Rule XIII of the Code, after a period of eight months, without sufficient explanation, appears to have been rightly rejected by the Tribunal. 6) Having considered submission of learned counsel for the parties and after going through the papers on record, this Court is not inclined to interfere in its jurisdiction under Article 226 / 227 of the Constitution of India, with the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal. The petition is dismissed. Interim order dated 17.05.2001 automatically stands vacated. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. September 02, 2009. H. Negi