JUDGMENT 1. - Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not extended him further instructions to proceed with the matter; however, he has otherwise received information that probably the matter has been settled between the parties and the payment under the award in question has been made and, therefore, it appears that the petitioner has lost interest in prosecuting this writ petition. 2. Though learned counsel has stated want of instructions from the petitioner but having examined the record of the case, this Court is satisfied that no useful purpose would be served by sending a notice to the petitioner in this case and this petition deserves to be dismissed on merits. 3. The petition has been filed against the order dated 02.05.2005 as passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nathdwara rejecting an application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC as made by the petitioner seeking setting aside of ex-parte award dated 10.09.2003 made by the said Tribunal in Claim Case No.80/2002 awarding an amount of Rs.43,000/- to the claimant Roop Singh towards compensation for the loss suffered by him due to injuries sustained in the vehicular accident. In the claim application, the present petitioner was joined as non-applicant No.1 in his capacity as the owner and driver of the offending vehicle but he remained ex-parte; and the insurer was exonerated by the Tribunal with the finding that the petitioner non-applicant No.1 was not holding valid driving licence to drive the vehicle in question i.e., a three-wheeler tempo and he held the licence only to drive a motor cycle. 4. After making of the award (Annex.3) on 10.09.2003, the petitioner moved an application (Annex.4) on 14.10.2003 for setting aside ex parte award with the submissions that he had extended instructions to a lawyer who did not file Vakalatnama and did not attend the matter. The learned Tribunal has rejected the application with the finding that the petitioner-non-applicant No.1 was served in the matter and the parallel case on criminal side was pending in relation to same accident that was being attended by the petitioner; and then, the facts as stated in the application were not supported by the affidavit of the lawyer concerned. The learned Tribunal has rejected the application with the finding that the petitioner-non-applicant No.1 was served in the matter and the parallel case on criminal side was pending in relation to same accident that was being attended by the petitioner; and then, the facts as stated in the application were not supported by the affidavit of the lawyer concerned. Apart from the aforesaid, the Tribunal has also considered the merits of the case and has found that even otherwise, the petitioner-non-applicant no.1 does not appear having any valid defence in the matter as his licence Ex.6 clearly shows that he was authorised to drive only a motor cycle with gear and not a three-wheeler tempo that was involved in the accident and, therefore, the insurer was entitled to be exonerated. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is satisfied that the approach of the learned Tribunal in rejecting the application for setting aside award cannot be said to be illegal or unjustified. Moreover, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.43,000/- to the claimant for the loss suffered due to the injuries sustained in the accident which included fracture of left femur bone. In the overall circumstances, there appears no reason to consider interference in extraordinary writ jurisdiction. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition stands rejected. Record be returned.Writ petition rejected. *******