ORDER 1. This appeal under Order XLIII rule 1 of CPC is filed against the order passed by Third Additional MACT, Indore in MJC No.35/2013 on 13.7.2013 by which dismissed the application under Order IX rule 13 of CPC. 2. Respondents filed a Claim Case No.7/2009 against the appellant claiming compensation on account of motor accident. After notice, appellant did not appear before the Tribunal, therefore, Tribunal proceeded exparte against the appellant and passed the award on 1.5.2012. 3. Thereafter, appellant filed an application under Order IX rule 13 of CPC for setting aside the exparte award. After enquiry, learned Tribunal dismissed the application. Being aggrieved by this order, present appeal has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the appellant is in service of Police Department since 1992 and he was posted at different places and he has not received any notice of the claim case, therefore, he could not appear in the Claims Tribunal at the time of hearing of the case and the Tribunal proceeded ex parte. He further submits that the respondents have not impleaded the owner and insurance company of the vehicle as party though the vehicle was insured. In such circumstances, appellant could not defend the claim case. Learned Tribunal has not considered the case of the appellant in its right perspective and dismissed the application on technical grounds. Thus, the impugned order is not justified and the ex parte award may be set aside and appellant may be given opportunity to defend himself before the Tribunal. 5. Learned counsel for respondents/claimants opposes the prayer. 6. After hearing the parties, I have perused the material available on record. It is clear that claimants have not impleaded the owner and insurance company of the vehicle as party and an ex parte award has been passed against the appellant. Appellant could not put up his defence before the Tribunal. Learned Tribunal while dismissing the application under Order IX rule 13 of CPC has not considered this aspect of the matter. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the appellant should have been given proper opportunity to defend himself. 7. In view of above, appeal is allowed. The impugned order as well as the ex parte award dated 1.5.2012 passed in Claim Case No.7/2009 are hereby set aside. 8. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the appellant should have been given proper opportunity to defend himself. 7. In view of above, appeal is allowed. The impugned order as well as the ex parte award dated 1.5.2012 passed in Claim Case No.7/2009 are hereby set aside. 8. With the aforesaid, the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal with direction to decide it afresh after recording evidence of the parties in the light of following condition that the appellant shall pay cost of Rs.3,000/­ (Three Thousand) to the respondent on or before 23.2.2015. Parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 23.2.2015. 9. Learned Tribunal shall make all endeavour to decide the matter within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 10. Appeal stands disposed of. Virendra Khadav for appellant; Kamal Yadav for respondents.