Pvr 1 ap165-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO.165 OF 2011 1.Rina Samanta & Anr. ...Petitioners vs. TATA Motors Finance Ltd. ...Respondent --- Mr.Dasharath A.Dube, for Petitioners. Mr.Manoj Prajapati with Ms.Aditi S. i/b. Mohit Gadkari & Co. for Respondent. --- CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH, J. DATED: 30th June,2011. P.C.:- 1. The petitioners by this petition challenge the Award made by the learned Arbitrator. Admittedly, the petitioners were Pvr 2 ap165-11 served with the notice from the learned Arbitrator. The date fixed for hearing was 1.12.2009. According to the averments in the petition, the petitioner no.1 met with an accident on 2.10.2009, and therefore, the petitioners were unable to remain present before the learned Arbitrator on 1.12.2009. There is no explanation in the petition, why the petitioners have not written a letter to the learned Arbitrator informing him that the petitioner no.1 has met with an accident and therefore, the petitioners should be given time and next date should be fixed for appearance. There is no document produced on record which will even indicate that the petitioner no.1 had in fact met with an accident and therefore, the petitioner no.1 was not in a position to move. 2. When I found that the petitioners do not have any explanation for not appearing before the learned Arbitrator despite receiving the notice, Pvr 3 ap165-11 I put it to the learned Counsel appearing for petitioners  whether the petitioners are willing to deposit the awarded amount in the Court , because the respondent, in that event, is willing to have the Award set aside so that the petitioners get an opportunity to contest the matter before the learned Arbitrator. But the learned Counsel appearing for petitioners stated that the petitioners are not in a position to deposit the amount. It does appear that there is no reason why the Award should be interfered with. The petition is, therefore, rejected. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) ---