JUDGMENT 1. - By this writ petition by the petitioner (non applicant owner of the vehicle), has challenged order dated 5.11.2011 passed on an application filed by the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. (along with application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act) in Civil Misc. Petition No. 5/2011, whereby the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur rejected above said application. 2. As per facts of the case, in Claim Petition No. 998/2004 filed by claimant Prem Shanker, which was allowed by learned Tribunal vide judgment and award dated 23.2.2005; the petitioner filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. along with application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay, praying for setting aside the MACT award passed against him on 23.2.20 05, stating therein that the claimant Prem Shanker has filed claim petition before the Tribunal against present petitioner Bhupendra Kumar and New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Summons were duly served but the petitioner did not appear before the Tribunal and ex parte proceeding was drawn against him. The Insurance Company contested the case and after completion of the trial, learned Tribunal passed award on 23.2.2005 granting compensation of Rs. 83000/- along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum. 3. After passing of the award dated 23.2.2005, the Insurance Company filed an application under Section 174 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the learned Tribunal, for recovery of the amount of award, which was disbursed by it to the claimant from the petitioner. Upon that Execution Petition No. 26/2009 proceeding was registered and Tribunal issued a certificate of recovery against the petitioner, to the Collector under Public Demand Recoveries Act. Thereupon, the petitioner filed application for setting aside of the award dated 23.2.2005, which was dismissed by the order impugned dated 5.11.2011. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, considered the submission raised in the writ petition and scanned through the material on record. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that from the facts mentioned herein above it is clear that notice of the Claim Petition was received by the petitioner but thereafter he appointed Shri Ashok Mogra for defending his case, who filed Vakalatnaina before the Tribunal but did not appear before the Tribunal thereafter and did not submit any reply on behalf of the petitioner. Due to non-presence of counsel on behalf of petitioner, ex parte proceeding was initiated by the Tribunal against the petitioner. 6. It is further submitted that the petitioner came to know about ex parte proceeding only 14.6.2010 when he received notice of recovery proceeding. Then petitioner immediately contacted to his counsel but 110 satisfactory reply was given him. Then he engaged another counsel, obtained copy of all proceedings and then filed application for setting aside of ex parte award under Order 9 Rule 13 and Section 151 C.P.C. but learned Tribunal dismissed the application of the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel further submitted that there is no fault on the part of petitioner because after service of notice, the petitioner duly appointed counsel for defending the claim but his counsel did not appear before the learned Tribunal. As such, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside. The petitioner is a poor person and he shall be facing great hardship in case recovery of awarded amount is allowed from him. It is therefore, prayed that this petition may be allowed, order dated 5.11.2011 passed by the learned Tribunal may be set aside and the application filed by the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. for quashing of ex parte award, along with application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of the delay, may be allowed. 8. It is clear that the incident occurred as back in the year 1999 whereafter the Claim Petition was filed in the year 2004. It is admitted position that summon was duly served on the petitioner. In view of absence of petitioner despite service, ex parte proceeding against the petitioner was ordered and ultimately, award was passed on the Claim Petition as back on 23.2.2005. Thereafter, Execution Petition (No. 26/2009) was filed by the Insurance Company in the year 2009 and as per petitioner, he contacted his said counsel only after 14.6.2010 when he received notice of recovery. 9. Upon circumspection of above facts on record, as per undisputed position stated by petitioner, after service of summons of Claim Petition neither he ever appeared before learned Tribunal nor ever contacted said counsel until after 14.6.2010. 9. Upon circumspection of above facts on record, as per undisputed position stated by petitioner, after service of summons of Claim Petition neither he ever appeared before learned Tribunal nor ever contacted said counsel until after 14.6.2010. From the perusal of order impugned, which has been passed by learned Judge with elaborate consideration of the application filed by the petitioner as well as award passed by learned Tribunal also, I find no illegality requiring any interference by this Court. 10. Hence, I find no force in the present writ petition. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed at admissions stage itself. 11. The stay petition also accordingly stands disposed of.Petition Dismissed. *******