JUDGMENT 1. - This is an appeal against the order of the Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kota (for short 'Tribunal') dated 6th May 1981 rejecting the application filed by the appellant for setting aside the award dated 3.5.1980 by which a sum of Rs. 36,000 was awarded to the respondents for the death of Madan Lal, husband of respondent no. 2 and son of respondent no. 1, in an accident on account of rash and negligent driving of a truck by the appellant Munshi Ram. 2. The claim was contested by Munshi Ram and a written statement was filed. The appellant since did not appear, ex-parte award was given on 3.5.80. Thereafter, an application for setting aside the ex-parte award was made by the appellant. The application was contested by the respondents on the ground that the same was filed on false and incorrect ground. The assertion of the respondents was that the appellant was not actually ill and he had come to the court with a fake and wrong case to get the ex-parte award quashed. They pleaded that not only the appellant knew about the pendency of the case but he was also aware of the date fixed and he deliberately kept himself away. He did not actually suffer from the disease mentioned by him. 3. In support of the application for setting aside the ex- parte award, the appellant filed a certificate of Dr. G.K. Sachdev who also appeared in the witness box to corroborate the same. Munshi Ram also appeared in the witness box and he admitted in the cross-examination that he used to go to the doctor in a scooter-rickshaw and he was never admitted in the hospital. 4. the court below, after hearing the parties and going through the record of the case, came to the conclusion that the ground for setting aside the ex-parte award was incorrect and that the appellant could come to the Court on the date of hearing. The Tribunal found that when the appellant could go to the doctor by scooter-rickshaw, there was no reason as to why he could not come to the court. 5. Having heard learned counsel for-the parties, I am of the same view on which the application was rejected by the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that when the appellant could go to the doctor by scooter-rickshaw, there was no reason as to why he could not come to the court. 5. Having heard learned counsel for-the parties, I am of the same view on which the application was rejected by the Tribunal. The appellant deliberately wanted to prolong the proceeding of compensation and that was the only motive and purpose on of which he absented himself on the date of hearing. It was wrongly alleged by him that the case had since been transferred to the Tribunal and neither his lawyer .nor he knew about such transfer, therefore, he could not appear. There is material contradiction in the assertions that the counsel did not know about the transfer of the case and having not given information of the same and that the appellant could not attend the court due to his illness.. These grounds were rightly recorded by the court below to be incorrect. 6. In this case, the award was passed on 3.5.1980 whereas the application for setting aside the said award was made on 7.1.1981, much cuter 30 days. Explanation given for the delay was not justified and adequate.Consequently the appeal is dismissed with costs.Appeal Dismissed. *******