JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been preferred against the award dated 01.09.2007, whereby, the claimants were held entitled for compensation of Rs. 5,95,864/- and Insurance Company was exonerated as it was found that the driver of the vehicle was not possessing a valid driving licence. 2. The appeal is barred by 613 days. In the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, it is stated that the award was passed ex parte against the appellants and an application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC was moved before the Tribunal, which was rejected on 10.07.2009 and, within a period of one month, after the rejection of application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC, this appeal has been preferred on 04.08.2009. It is claimed that the appellants had sufficient cause for the delay and, therefore, the same deserves to be condoned. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent- Insurance Company submitted that the application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC itself was filed after a passage of one year from the date of passing of the award. It was also submitted that even on the merits, the appellants have no case and, therefore, the application for condonation of delay as well as the appeal deserve to be dismissed. 4. I have considered the rival submissions made by counsel for the parties. 5. The service on the appellants before the Tribunal was effected by registered post and it is claimed that they were unaware of the pending proceedings and as soon as they became aware about the passing of the award, they moved application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex parte award. The Tribunal without considering the appellants' application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has dismissed the application on merits by holding that as admittedly the driver was not having valid licence the appellants were liable to pay the compensation. 6. In view of the fact that this appeal has been preferred before this Court within a period of one month from the date of dismissal of application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC, the delay in filing the appeal deserves to be condoned. 7. On the merits of the appeal itself, it is an admitted fact that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence and, therefore, the Insurance Company was rightly exonerated. 7. On the merits of the appeal itself, it is an admitted fact that the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence and, therefore, the Insurance Company was rightly exonerated. Even on the quantum of compensation, the appellant has no case as the award is eminently just and proper and is in line with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., reported at (2006) SCC 121 . 8. In view of the above discussion, the appeal has no substance and the same is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.Appeal dismissed. *******