ORDER : Sangeet Lodha, J. This writ petition is directed against orders dated 25.3.14 and 5.2.11 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bali, whereby the applications preferred under Order 9, Rule 7 CPC for setting aside the order directing proceeding ex parte against the petitioner, stand rejected. 2. The relevant facts are that the respondents no.2 to 5 herein, filed the claim for compensation under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, on account of death of their husband/father in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 21.3.2008. Despite service of the notice, nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioner-Insurance Company and therefore, vide order dated 28.5.09, the Tribunal directed proceeding ex parte against it. After a lapse of more than a year, on 6.7.10, the petitioner-Insurance Company filed an application under Order 9, Rule 7 for setting aside the order dated 5.2.09 alleged to have been passed by the Tribunal directing proceeding ex parte against the petitioner contending that the summons issued by the court were sent for service to the Pune office of the Insurance Company instead of Jaipur office. It was averred that the summon was not accompanied by copy of the claim petition and the papers relating to the criminal case. According to the petitioner-Insurance Company, it came to know about the pendency of the claim petition through their counsel on 12.6.10. 3. The application was contested by the claimants by filing a reply thereto. 4. After due consideration of the rival submissions, the Tribunal arrived at the finding that the papers relating to the insurance given to the claimants by the petitioner-Insurance Company were issued by its Pune office and therefore, there is no error in service being effected upon the petitioner-Insurance Company at its Pune office. The Tribunal found that the notices for the date of hearing 5.2.09 were duly served upon the petitioner-Insurance Company on 27.11.08. The Tribunal observed that on 5.2.09 and 13.5.09, nobody appeared on behalf of the Insurance Company and therefore, the order passed on 28.5.09 directing proceeding ex parte against the petitioner-Insurance Company cannot be faulted with. The Tribunal found that the notices for the date of hearing 5.2.09 were duly served upon the petitioner-Insurance Company on 27.11.08. The Tribunal observed that on 5.2.09 and 13.5.09, nobody appeared on behalf of the Insurance Company and therefore, the order passed on 28.5.09 directing proceeding ex parte against the petitioner-Insurance Company cannot be faulted with. The Tribunal observed that on 5.2.09, no order directing proceeding ex parte was passed by the Tribunal against the petitioner-Insurance Company, rather, the order was passed on 28.5.09, however, no application has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner-Insurance Company for setting aside the order dated 28.5.09 directing proceeding ex parte. Accordingly, the application preferred was rejected by the Tribunal vide order dated 5.2.11. 5. After rejection of the application as aforesaid, on 31.5.11, the petitioner-Insurance Company preferred yet another application for setting aside the order dated 28.5.09 directing proceeding ex parte. The application preferred as aforesaid has been dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 23.3.14. Hence, this petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that it is settled law that no person shall be condemned unheard and therefore, in the interest of justice, the orders impugned passed by the Tribunal deserve to be set aside and the applications preferred by the petitioner-Insurance Company deserve to be allowed. Learned counsel submitted that the application preferred by the petitioner-Insurance Company for setting aside the order directing proceeding ex parte was dismissed by the Tribunal observing that the petitioner-Insurance Company was required to make an application for setting aside the order dated 28.5.09, whereby the order directing proceeding ex parte was passed against it, however, the second application preferred by the petitioner for setting aside the order dated 28.5.09 has also been rejected by the Tribunal, which is ex facie erroneous. 7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. 8. Indisputably, the claim petition claiming compensation was filed by the respondents-claimants on account of death of their husband/father in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 21.3.08. In the claim petition filed in the year 2008, the notices were duly served upon the respondents on 27.11.08 for the date of hearing 5.2.09. However, the petitioner-Insurance Company did not care to put in appearance before the Tribunal. In the claim petition filed in the year 2008, the notices were duly served upon the respondents on 27.11.08 for the date of hearing 5.2.09. However, the petitioner-Insurance Company did not care to put in appearance before the Tribunal. Be that as it may, after a lapse of about more than a year, an application was preferred for setting aside the proceeding ex parte, assuming that the order proceeding ex parte was passed by the Tribunal on 5.2.09 whereas, as a matter of fact, the order directing proceeding ex parte was passed by the Tribunal on 28.5.09. The application preferred was not rejected by the Tribunal solely on the ground that no prayer is made for setting aside the order dated 28.5.09. As a matter of fact, after due consideration, the Tribunal found that the reasons assigned for non appearance do not constitute 'sufficient cause' and therefore, the application preferred was rejected. It is pertinent to note that even after rejection of the application as aforesaid, the petitioner-Insurance Company, did not take appropriate steps to file an appropriate application immediately for setting aside the order dated 28.5.09. The application in this regard, was preferred after a lapse of about three months on 31.5.11. Further, the petitioner-Insurance Company has approached this court questioning the legality of the order dated 28.5.09, after a lapse of about eight months. 9. It is really unfortunate that on account of sheer negligence on the part of the petitioner-Insurance Company in dealing with the matter and indulging in filing applications for setting aside the order proceeding ex parte in unscrupulous manner, the claim petition preferred by the claimant has not proceeded further. In the considered opinion of this court, taking into consideration the nature of the proceedings, the Tribunal is required to dispose of the same expeditiously. The petitioner-Insurance Company has failed to show the sufficient cause for non appearance before the Tribunal on the date fixed. The findings arrived at by the Tribunal in this regard cannot be said to be capricious or perverse. This court is of the considered opinion that looking at the conduct of the petitioner-Insurance Company in dealing with the proceeding in most negligent manner, it is not entitled for any indulgence by this court. 10. The findings arrived at by the Tribunal in this regard cannot be said to be capricious or perverse. This court is of the considered opinion that looking at the conduct of the petitioner-Insurance Company in dealing with the proceeding in most negligent manner, it is not entitled for any indulgence by this court. 10. In view of the discussion above, the orders impugned do not suffer from any infirmity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 11. In the result, the petition fails, it is hereby dismissed in limine. Petition dismissed.