ORDER 1. Heard on I.A. No.7716/2015, an application for condonation of delay. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner / owner of the offending vehicle submitted that there is delay in filing the review petition, but as per paragraph No.14 of the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal while passing final award dated 20th September, 2010 in Claims Case No.284/2009 that at the time of accident, the driver was having Light Motor Vehicle License and this fact has been considered by the learned Claims Tribunal in paragraphs No.13 and 14 of the award and relying on the decision in the case of Ashok Gangadhar Maratha v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, reported in (2000)1 SCC 63 and in the case of IFFCO Tokiyo General Insurance Company Limited v. Shankarlal and others, reported in 2009 ACJ 2618 , directed that the owner of the offending vehicle and Insurance Company are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation. He submitted that though the owner of the offending vehicle was ex parte before the Claims Tribunal, but at the time of passing of the impugned award / order dated 6.11.2012 in Miscellaneous Appeal No.3570/2010, he was not heard. Therefore, he prays that the application for condonation of delay be allowed and the impugned order dated 6.11.2012 passed in Miscellaneous Appeal No.3570/2010 be set aside. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer and pray for dismissal of the application. 4. On due consideration of the aforesaid and for the reasons assigned in the application, we are of the view that the cause shown by the petitioner is sufficient to condone the delay. 5. Accordingly, I.A. No.7716/2015 is allowed and delay of 365 days in filing the review petition is hereby condoned. 6. 4. On due consideration of the aforesaid and for the reasons assigned in the application, we are of the view that the cause shown by the petitioner is sufficient to condone the delay. 5. Accordingly, I.A. No.7716/2015 is allowed and delay of 365 days in filing the review petition is hereby condoned. 6. As per the order dated 6.11.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Miscellaneous Appeal No.3570/2010, admittedly though the owner of the offending vehicle was ex parte before the Claims Tribunal, but if any adverse order is passed against the owner of the offending vehicle, who is going to suffer adversely, then he could have been heard before passing the impugned order; and the ratio upon which reliance was placed by the learned Claims Tribunal still holds the field, as is evident from the latest decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kulwant Singh and others v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, reported in 2014 ACJ 2873 , and in the case of S. Iyyapan v. United India Insurance Company Limited and another, reported in 2013 ACJ 1944. 7. Considering the aforesaid so also the fact that the owner of the offending vehicle was not heard while passing the order dated 6.11.2012, we set aside the impugned order dated 6.11.2012 passed in Miscellaneous Appeal No.3570/2010 and remit the matter to the learned appellate Court to decide it afresh, in accordance with law. 8. With the aforesaid, Review Petition No.692/2013 is allowed.