JUDGMENT : C.V. Sirpurkar, J. 1. This Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order dated 02.02.2010 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dindori, in Motor Vehicles Case No. 17/05, whereby the learned Tribunal had dismissed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed on behalf of the applicant/appellant Anand Kumar Sahu for condoning delay in filing and application under order 9 rule 13 C.P.C. for setting aside ex-parte award dated 29-11-2006 passed against the appellant. 2. It is matter of record that respondents Ranmat Singh and Ganeshi Bai moved an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act for compensation for the death of their son Bhansingh in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 04.03.2006, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dindori. The claim petition was registered as Claim Case No. 17/2005. At the time of accident, offending vehicle was owned by appellant Anand Kumar Sahu and was being driven by one Jagdish. During the trial by order dated 04.03.2006, learned Tribunal proceeded ex-parte against the owner Anand Kumar Sahu. After the trial, claim petition was allowed vide award dated 29.11.2006 and the vehicle owner Anand Kumar Sahu and driver Jagdish were held jointly and severely liable to pay compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,67,000/- to the claimants. Respondent No. 3 before the Tribunal, Oriental Insurance Company Limited was exonerated from liability on the ground that on the date of the accident, offending vehicle was not insured with them. 3. Subsequently, on 12.10.2009, appellant Anand Kumar Sahu moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside award on the ground that the notice of claim petition was addressed to Anand Kumar Sahu S/O S.C. Sahu; whereas, the name of the appellant's father is Santosh Kumar Sahu; therefore, the appellant was confused as to whether the notice was meant for him or not? However, he engaged Advocate Shri Avtar Singh and thereafter appointed Advocate Shri K.P. Singh Parihar to defend him before the tribunal. He was assured by his lawyers that they would contest the case on his behalf. The appellant was not acquainted with procedure of the Court and he was sure that the case would be contested by his lawyers on his behalf. However, on 07.10.2009, he learnt that he was proceeded ex-parte and an award dated 29.11.2006 was passed against him. He was assured by his lawyers that they would contest the case on his behalf. The appellant was not acquainted with procedure of the Court and he was sure that the case would be contested by his lawyers on his behalf. However, on 07.10.2009, he learnt that he was proceeded ex-parte and an award dated 29.11.2006 was passed against him. The appellant took one more ground in the petition and submitted that the offending vehicle was registered with United India Insurance Company Limited on the date of the accident; whereas, the claimants impleaded Oriental Insurance Company in the case. Since, on the date of accident the vehicle was not insured with the Oriental Insurance Company, it was rightly exonerated from liability. In aforesaid circumstances, it was prayed that since there was no negligence on his part in contesting the claim, the award dated 29.11.2006, passed ex-parte against him be set aside. 4. Since, aforesaid application under order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure was time barred, an application under Section 5of the Limitation Act was also moved for condonation of delay. Learned Tribunal by impugned order dated 2.2.2010, dismissed the application for condonation of delay on the ground that since the applicant himself had admitted that notice was served upon him and he had engaged counsel therein, it cannot be said that he was not aware of the proceedings. In these circumstances, learned Tribunal observed that there was no sufficient ground for condonation of delay of three long years. For aforesaid reasons, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was dismissed and by implication application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure also stood dismissed. 5. The impugned order dated 2.2.2010 has been challenged in this miscellaneous appeal on the ground that though, the appellant was somewhat confused because of erroneous mentioning of a part of his father's name in the notice sent to him; yet, he engaged counsel to defend him. It was further pleaded that he was assured by his counsel that they will contest the case on his behalf and he should keep consulting them in the matter. It was further pleaded that he was assured by his counsel that they will contest the case on his behalf and he should keep consulting them in the matter. Even after that, his advocates failed to contest the matter and as a result this fact could not be brought on record of the case that on the date of accident, the offending vehicle was insured with United India Insurance Company and not Oriental Insurance Company. In the circumstances, it has been prayed that the award dated 29.11.2006 be set aside and the appellant be allowed to contest the matter. 6. A perusal of the record reveals that the appellant Anand Kumar Sahu was duly served in the claim petition. It is evident by the fact that he engaged two advocates, one after the other, to defend his interest in the claim petition. It is true that he was duty bound to ascertain the progress of his case from time to time and to keep instructing his counsel and he singularly failed to do the same; however, there is one vital aspect which seems to have escaped the attention of learned Tribunal while deciding the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that on the date of accident, the vehicle was insured not with Oriental Insurance Company but United India Insurance Company Limited. In this regard, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants has submitted before this Court that the Oriental Insurance Company was impleaded because a policy issued by that company was filed by the owner in connected criminal case. A copy of policy issued by the United India Insurance Company was also filed before the learned Tribunal; however, Tribunal confined itself only to the aspect of delay and not being satisfied with the reasons ascribed for delay rejected the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 7. Motor Vehicle Act is a beneficial legislation and all orders of the Tribunal/Court should be directed towards expeditiously compensating the victims of motor vehicle accidents or their legal representatives in a just and fare manner. Due to failure of the appellant /owner to contest the claim petition, the fact that on the date of accident the vehicle was insured with United India Insurance Company Limited, could not be brought to the notice of the Tribunal. Due to failure of the appellant /owner to contest the claim petition, the fact that on the date of accident the vehicle was insured with United India Insurance Company Limited, could not be brought to the notice of the Tribunal. As a consequence, the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle were held liable to pay the amount of compensation jointly and severely. It is commonly known that it is extremely difficult to get an award executed against private parties namely driver and the owner. If the award is allowed to stand, there is a reasonable apprehension that the success of the claimants in the claim petition, would remain a pyrrhic one. In these circumstances, it would also be in the interest of the claimants that proper insurance company is impleaded in the case. As such, It would be in the larger interest of justice if the owner is allowed to contest the claim. However, since a long delay of three years has been caused due to failure of the owner to contest the claim petition, a cost commensurate the amount of delay, will have to be imposed upon him to compensate the claimants. 8. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the learned Tribunal has explicitly dismissed only the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act; however, the grounds considered by the learned Tribunal for dismissing the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, are also the grounds on which the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure was moved. In any case, the automatic consequences of dismissing the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was dismissal of the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In these circumstances, this Court in order to do complete justice and curtail delay, would have to set aside both the impugned order dated 2.2.2010 and award dated 29.11.2006 passed in Claim Case No. 17/2005. 9. Consequently, it is directed that the appellant shall deposit a sum of Rs. 15,000/- in the Claims Tribunal, Dindori, by way of costs to be paid to the claimants within a period of one month from the date of this order. 9. Consequently, it is directed that the appellant shall deposit a sum of Rs. 15,000/- in the Claims Tribunal, Dindori, by way of costs to be paid to the claimants within a period of one month from the date of this order. Subject to deposing the amount as aforesaid: (a) The impugned order dated 2.2.2010 is set aside; (b) the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act dated 13.11.2009 is allowed application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure is also allowed; (c) in the result, the award dated 29.11.2006 passed in Motor Accident Claims Case No. 17/2005 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dindori is set aside; (d) the aforesaid claims case is restored to its original number. 10. Learned Tribunal shall give the appellant/owner/Anand Kumar Sahu and opportunity to file reply to the claim petition. It shall also afford opportunity to the claimants to implead New India Insurance Company if so advised and thereafter, shall decide the claim petition afresh preferably within 3 months from the date of appearance of the parties before the Tribunal. The parties to this miscellaneous appeal shall appear before the Tribunal on 2.3.2015. It shall not be necessary for the Tribunal to issue any further notice for ensuring appearance of the aforesaid parties. 11. It is made clear that in the event of failure of the appellant to deposit the entire amount as aforesaid, none of the above direction shall come into force. 12. With the aforesaid directions, this appeal is disposed of.