JUDGMENT Hon’ble Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.—Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Raj Kumar Verma, learned counsel, who has put in appearance on behalf of respondents No. 2 to 6. Ms. Pooja Arora has appeared on behalf of respondent No. 8. 2. Objections against application for condonation of delay as well as deletion of respondent No. 8 from the array of parties has been filed by Ms. Pooja Arora on behalf of Oriental Insurance Company. 3. Delay in filing the appeal is two years, seven months sixteen days from the date of rejection of application filed under Order IX Rule 13 on 28.2.2015 but the appeal as against the original order of award dated 2.5.2013 is barred by more than three years. Motor Accidents Claim Case No. 404 of 2006 was filed by the dependent parents under Section 166 read with Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act due to accidental death of their son Suresh @ Surendra but later on his wife and minor children have also come to be arrayed as claimants. The appellant being owner of the vehicle involved in the accident was impleaded as defendant No. 1 whereas the driver (Raj Kumar) was impleaded as defendant No. 2 and defendant No. 3 (Pradeep Kumar) was alleged transferee of the vehicle. Notices were issued to all the defendants. 4. The record reveals that despite sufficient service of notice, the defendants did not turn up before the Tribunal. Consequently, the matter was proceeded ex parte and an order to this effect was passed on 19.3.2012. The Tribunal thereafter proceeded to consider the claim and having regard to the material available on record, an award was rendered on 2.5.2013 whereby a compensation of Rs. 4,79,000/- alongwith 7% interest was awarded in favour of the claimants and the same was made payable by the registered owner of the vehicle i.e. the appellant. 5. It appears that proceedings under Section 174 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 were initiated for recovery of the decretal amount before the Tribunal and on summons being issued, appellant came to know about the order rendered by the Tribunal as a result whereof an application under Order IX Rule 13 was filed by appellant before the Tribunal for setting aside ex parte award. The appellant did not specifically disclose as to why did he not reside at the registered address i.e. the address mentioned in the registration certificate of the vehicle but has simply stated in paragraph 4 that he acquired the knowledge about the award rendered by the Tribunal on 2.5.2013 when summons in Misc. Execution Case No. 37/13 were received by him. The knowledge of the award was stated to have been acquired through some other people. 6. In the application filed by appellant under Order IX Rule 13, the address disclosed by the appellant was his present address but there was no disclosure as to where did the appellant reside prior to the date of filing of such application or as to why appellant had not resided at the address mentioned in the registration certificate of the vehicle. 7. While setting up the case for recall of ex parte award, appellant has also not stated as to whether the vehicle was insured and at the time of accident, the same was driven by a person holding valid licence and there was a valid permit. 8. The Tribunal proceeded to consider the application filed under Order IX Rule 13 and the same was rejected by an order dated 28.2.2015. The Tribunal has clearly recorded that notices were published and thus, the service of notice on the appellant and other defendants was sufficient, as such, the justification pleaded by the appellant in the application under Order IX Rule 13 was rejected. 9. The appellant feeling aggrieved against rejection of the application under Order IX Rule 13 on 28.2.2015, filed a writ petition before this Court which was registered as Writ Petition No. 2273 (MS) of 2015 and the same was dismissed in default on 30.4.2015. The order of dismissal of writ petition shows that the same was listed under Chapter XII Rule 4 when for want of prosecution, the writ petition came to be dismissed. 10. It appears that the appellant, during the same very period when the writ petition was pending, filed objections in the execution proceedings. It is gathered from the record that two misc. applications, one by the appellant for impleadment of insurance company as a party and the other by claimant for release of the amount of Rs. 50,000/- alleged to have been deposited by the appellant were filed before the Tribunal. It is gathered from the record that two misc. applications, one by the appellant for impleadment of insurance company as a party and the other by claimant for release of the amount of Rs. 50,000/- alleged to have been deposited by the appellant were filed before the Tribunal. The application for impleadment of insurance company at the execution stage was rejected by order dated 14.7.2016 whereas report was called from the District Judge as regards the deposit of Rs. 50,0000/- by the owner so that order for release was passed. 11. The present appeal has been filed against the original award dated 2.5.2013 at a stage when all other remedies have come to be closed. The appeal as against the original order is delayed by more than three years. The claimant, due to non-participation of the appellant, on the other hand, is running from pillar to post for the satisfaction of award through the execution proceedings. 12. It may be relevant to note that the appellant while filing application under Order IX Rule 13, has neither disclosed that the vehicle involved in the accident was insured nor has he disclosed that the vehicle having a valid permit was driven by a person holding valid licence. Even at this stage, when an appeal has been filed against the award rendered by the Tribunal on 2.5.2013, there is no mention of any such material which may indicate that the vehicle involved in the accident was driven by a person holding valid licence. 13. A photocopy of the insurance cover note was filed alongwith the application, seeking impleadment of the insurer at the execution stage besides mentioning the availability of some other documents but the defence available to the appellant was never taken before the Tribunal either by participating in the claim proceedings or at the time of filing application under Order IX Rule 13. There appears to be a clear dilatory tactics which the appellant has indulged into throughout so as to frustrate the claim set up by the claimant. 14. The right to compensation is a valuable right of the dependent family members of a victim whose breadwinner meets with an unfortunate situation. There appears to be a clear dilatory tactics which the appellant has indulged into throughout so as to frustrate the claim set up by the claimant. 14. The right to compensation is a valuable right of the dependent family members of a victim whose breadwinner meets with an unfortunate situation. The owner of the vehicle who is responsible to pay or the insurance company being bound under the insurance policy, as a matter of duty, ought to have followed the law as a normal practice without subjecting the victim or his dependents to pursue unnecessary litigation. Unfortunately, in our country, victims of accidents run from pillar to post for the redressal of their grievance and it is very often seen that the benefits of claim allowed by the Tribunals are satisfied at a point of time when the real victims do not survive. This state of affairs is pathetic and defeats the very object of social justice. 15. In the present case, from the fact that the appellant failed to place all the relevant material before the Tribunal and also the manner in which opportunity is sought to be reopened to contest the proceedings, it is clear that reopening of the present proceedings at the instance of appellant who complains of an ex parte award being executed against him, the objection is nothing but an attempt to delay. 16. The defence projected before this Court that the onus of liability lies on the part of respondent No. 8 (insurer), unless made out by following due procedure of law, cannot be shifted in a case where the owner of the vehicle has been so indigent and negligent about the claim of victims. The insurance company not being a party before the Tribunal, is taken by a surprise, simply because the appellant failed to avail the opportunity available to him under law. Once the appellant had not participated in the proceedings before the Tribunal, despite notice and has further failed to demonstrate his cause by taking a categorical stand, the scope of interference in the impugned order has come to a naught and the appellant who has rendered himself disentitled for having the benefit of opportunity even by reopening the proceedings, cannot have the advantage of his own wrong. Thus, the appeal fails and is rejected. 17. Thus, the appeal fails and is rejected. 17. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant prayed that the appellant is ready to deposit the entire decretal amount alongwith interest before the Tribunal within a period of two months which may be permitted to be released in favour of claimants, however, protection of opportunity in the interest of justice may be given under Section 174 of Motor Vehicles Act, which reads as under: 174. Recovery of money from insurer as arrear of land revenue.—Where any amount is due from any person under an award, the Claims Tribunal may, on an application made to it by the person entitled to the amount, issue a certificate for the amount to the Collector and the Collector shall proceed to recover the same in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. 18. From the appreciation of facts, as have emerged hereinabove, it is clear that the award has been rendered against the appellant ex parte. It is, therefore, provided that in case all the relevant papers of registration, permit, driving licence, insurance etc. are filed before the Tribunal, the same on being found valid by the Tribunal and after due opportunity to the insurer, the recovery rights of the appellant against the insurer may be adjudicated upon by the Tribunal in accordance with law. The opportunity shall be available subject to the deposit of entire decretal amount within two months and release of the same within one month thereafter. 19. It is also clarified that the pecuniary loss on account of non-impleadment of the insurer in such a situation, would also be viewed by the Tribunal against the registered owner and may be equitably apportioned. Thus, the order dated 14.7.2016 is hereby set aside and the objection raised by the appellant in the execution proceedings shall be decided in accordance with law after due notice to the insurer.