JUDGMENT : Sanjay Kumar Gupta, J. These civil revisions have been filed against the order dated 25.04.2015 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Reasi in case titled Gulshama Begum and others v. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited and others, and in case titled Shafiqa Begum and another v. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited and in case titled Tajo Begum and others v. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited and others whereby the applications of the petitioner for setting aside of the ex parte Awards dated 04.11.2013 & 25.11.2013 have been dismissed. 2. Since common questions of law and facts arise for consideration in these petitions, they were heard analogously and are being decided by this common order. 3. The facts leading to filing of these petitions briefly stated are that the impugned order is against the law, hence the same is liable to be set aside. The respondents /claimants filed claim petitions before the learned MACT, Reasi with regard to death of Sh. Abdul Rahim, Sh. Mushtaq Ahmed and Sh. Abdul Gaffar, who died in an accident on 14.10.2011. The appellant after receipt of notice of filing the claim petitions from the learned Tribunal had engaged the counsel namely Sh. Diwakar Sharma, Advocate as counsel who also filed the objections to the claim petitions. In the objections, in addition to other factual pleas, have taken a plea of validity of driving licence of the driver of the alleged offending vehicle which was commercial vehicle (TATA Sumo) but was possessing driving licence to drive Motorcycle with gear and LMV only. The learned counsel after filing the objections absented from the proceedings before the learned Tribunal as a result the ex parte order was passed against the appellant and on coming to know about the ex parte proceedings an application was filed through another counsel namely Mr. Akhil Prashev, Advocate for contesting the cases on behalf of the appellant company. The said application was allowed and the ex parte proceedings against the petitioner company were set aside. It is further stated that after engaging another counsel made communication to him through his mobile but he assured that the cases are going on well and the appellant-company will be provided the dates when the presence of its law officer was required for his statement in support of its defence. It is further stated that after engaging another counsel made communication to him through his mobile but he assured that the cases are going on well and the appellant-company will be provided the dates when the presence of its law officer was required for his statement in support of its defence. It was also brought to the notice of the learned counsel engaged through its communication with Investigation report that the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle is not valid for the purpose of driving of offending vehicle hence requested for taking appropriate steps for summoning of the witnesses so that the appellant-company be able to establish and prove the statutory defences. It is further stated that the counsel who was engaged by the appellant-company advised the officer/official of the appellant-company that as the matter of fact that the case is of civil nature hence their attendance is not required before the learned Tribunal and when their presence is required he will inform. But to the surprise of this appellant the counsel had neither informed nor responded any letters of the appellant nor took the defence as informed to him along with record. Hence the company is burdened with the liability to pay compensation by means of ex parte award although it had none. It is further stated that the Law Officer of the appellant company on coming to know of the ex parte award through Sh. Deepak Atri, Advocate who was appointed as counsel for the petitioner-company for contesting the cases of the company at Reasi as the earlier counsel engaged stopped coming to the Court at Reasi because of some domestic problems, as Mr. Atri received the notice in execution petition of the ex parte award from the learned Tribunal. He immediately informed the appellant company and applied for the certified copy of the award on the instructions of the appellant. Thereafter filed an application for setting aside of the ex parte award by highlighting the factual position supported with documents. The learned Tribunal invited the objections to the application filed by the appellant but has not given any chance to led any evidence in support of the application and fixed the case straight way for final arguments. Thereafter filed an application for setting aside of the ex parte award by highlighting the factual position supported with documents. The learned Tribunal invited the objections to the application filed by the appellant but has not given any chance to led any evidence in support of the application and fixed the case straight way for final arguments. The learned Tribunal without going into facts highlighted in the petition for setting aside the award passed, dismissed the same on the simple grounds that the domestic problems of the counsel engaged has not been highlighted and there will be injustice to widows and orphaned children who are eluded for the relief despite passing of ex parte order. The order impugned is bad in law and is passed without application of mind and the facts highlighted in the petition. It is further stated that the learned Tribunal's order is against the ratio laid down in the National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gowramma (Decided on 25th April, 2013 in MFA No. 6828 of 2009-Karnataka HC) & in case titled Bajaj Allianz General Insurance v C. Rajagopal (Decided on 11th October, 2012-Karnataka High Court), wherein it is held that an opportunity has to be given to the appellant to put-forth its contentions with regard to issuance of policy and liability of the appellant to indemnify or otherwise & the tribunal ought to have verified after service of notice as to who was regularly appearing on behalf of the Company in other cases before it. 4. The petitioner challenges the order impugned on the following grounds:- a. That the order impugned is against the facts highlighted by the petitioner in the petition for setting aside the ex parte award. b. That appellant is made to suffer because of non-cooperation and negligence of the counsel engaged. c. That no chance has been given to led evidence in support of the application. e. That as per the verification record of driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle respondent No. 3 does not possess the valid & effective driving licence at the time of accident. The accused does not have any PSV endorsement at the time of accident which is in violation of policy terms and conditions as well as Sec-149(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988. Hence, Insurance Company is not liable for any compensation. The accused does not have any PSV endorsement at the time of accident which is in violation of policy terms and conditions as well as Sec-149(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988. Hence, Insurance Company is not liable for any compensation. f. That the offending vehicle was being plied in the District Udhampur while the accident took place in District Reasi. However, as per the Permit verification report, the offending vehicle does not have any valid route permit to ply the vehicle in the district Reasi on the date of accident. Hence, the driver has violated the terms and conditions of the Policy as well as Sec-66 & 149(2) of the MV Act. Hence, on both the grounds the appellant Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation and absolve from all the liabilities. g. That the award amount is on higher side and failed to consider the income documents. h. That it is settled law that the party should not suffer because of the conduct of the counsel engaged by him who failed to exercise his duty fairly while defending the petitioner-company. i. That the learned tribunal failed its duty while considering the petition and passing the order impugned as it can open the issue with regard to fixing the liability part in the ex parte award passed in the petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. j. That the grounds on which the order impugned is passed is simply humanitarian grounds but not on merits and records and pleadings. It is settled law that the Motor Vehicles Act is although a beneficial legislation but it can neither be allowed to be used as a source of profit not as a windfall to the person affected nor should be punitive. 5. This court vide order dated 01.07.2015 issued notice and stayed the execution proceedings. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the file. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner-company in support of his arguments has relied upon the judgments of this Court in case titled State of J&K v. Mohammad Rafi Paswal & others, reported in 2005 (3) JKJ 403 (HC) and in case titled Syed Tassawur Jallali & another v. Zamrooda (Mst.) & others, reported in 2014 (3) JKJ 269 (HC). 8. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner-company in support of his arguments has relied upon the judgments of this Court in case titled State of J&K v. Mohammad Rafi Paswal & others, reported in 2005 (3) JKJ 403 (HC) and in case titled Syed Tassawur Jallali & another v. Zamrooda (Mst.) & others, reported in 2014 (3) JKJ 269 (HC). 8. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the respondents, in support of his arguments has also relied upon the judgment of this Court in case titled Mohammad Tariq Mir v. Ghulam Qadir Bhat, reported in 2011 (2) SLJ 873. 9. I have given my thoughtful consideration to whole aspect of the matter. 10. From the perusal of record, it reveals that four claims petition arising out of same accident, which took place on 14.10.2011 due to rash and negligent diving of driver of offending vehicle Tata Sumo JK14-B5340 at Shadole falling under jurisdiction P/S Mahore, were filed for grant of compensation. In this accident, four persons namely Mushtaq Ahmed, Abdul Gaffar and Abdul Rahim died. Their legal heirs filed claim petitions and one injured Javaid Ahmed also filed claim petition on account of injuries sustained by him. Petitioner herein was arrayed as insurance company along with owner and diver; company appeared and filed objections through Advocate Diwaker Sharma on 18.4.013; other respondents also filed objections. Advocate of company thereafter did not appear and so ex-parte proceeding were initiated against company. Finally on 4.11.2013 and 25.11.2013 court below (MACT Reasi) passed award in all claims petitions against company. Thereafter, execution petitions were filed and notice was issued to company. The company then filed applications for setting aside ex-parte awards; in the applications it has been stated that company engaged a counsel, who filed objections but due to domestic problem the counsel could not appear in court with the result ex-parte proceedings were initiated and thereafter awards were passed. That company has not been given any opportunity of being heard. That a specific stand was taken that driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid licence. That it was only on 26.5.2014, the company came to know about awards, when counsel for applicant received notice of execution of award. That immediately thereafter certified copy of award was applied. 11. That a specific stand was taken that driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid licence. That it was only on 26.5.2014, the company came to know about awards, when counsel for applicant received notice of execution of award. That immediately thereafter certified copy of award was applied. 11. Other side filed objections stating that Advocate Diwaker Sharma appeared for company and filed vakalatnama, then absented and ex-parte proceeding was initiated, then it was set aside and advocate for company filed objections on 18.4.2013. Thereafter again wilfully absented. 12. Court below after hearing the parties, dismissed all the applications for setting aside ex-parte awards on the ground that due to domestic problem Advocate for company could not appear, but what was domestic problem has not been pleaded; court below further held that proceeding remained pending for two years, so reason mentioned are not plausible, but sheer negligence on part of company and counsel. 13. Law with regard to setting aside ex-parte decree/order is settled. The period for filing application for setting aside ex-parte decree/order is 30 days from date of decree, when party is prosecuting the case, as is evident from article 164 of Limitation Act. Article 164 of Limitation Act reads as under:- Description of suit Period of limitation Time from which period begins to run 164 By a defendant, for an order to set aside a decree passed ex-parte Thirty days The date of decree or, where the summons was not duly served, when applicant has knowledge of the decree. 14. If it is not filed within this period, then there is enabling provision for condoning delay i.e. section 5 of limitation Act. 15. Section 5 of Limitation Act reads as under:- "5. 14. If it is not filed within this period, then there is enabling provision for condoning delay i.e. section 5 of limitation Act. 15. Section 5 of Limitation Act reads as under:- "5. Extension of period in certain cases An appeal or an application for a review of a judgment or for leave to appeal or an application to set aside an order of dismissal of a suit for plaintiff's default or an application to set aside a decree passed ex-parte in an original suit or appeal or an application to bring the heirs of a deceased party on the record or an application to set aside an order of abatement of a suit or appeal or any other application to which this section may be made applicable by or under an enactment for the time being in force may be admitted after the period of limitation prescribed therefore, when the appellant or applicant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period." 16. From the bare perusal of this section, it is evident that court can condone the delay in filing application for setting aside ex-parte decree, if applicant satisfies the court that he was having sufficient cause due to which he could not file application within prescribed period of limitation. Sufficient cause means cause, which court thinks adequate and beyond control of person seeking benefit of section 5 of limitation act. 17. Now law is settled that each and every days after expiry of limitation period, have to be explained by party seeking condonation of delay, after the limitation period is over. This delay has to be explained by cogent reasons. 18. The arguments of learned counsel that although the company had engaged his counsel to defend the claim petition, but subsequently counsel neither appeared before the MACT nor informed company about the status of the claim petition, is neither tenable nor a plausible explanation. As is evident from the impugned order, the claimants are unfortunate legal heirs of deceased persons, claimed the damages on account of death of their only earning members. The petitioner-company was duly served and initially represented by his counsel. Subsequently, as nobody appeared on their behalf, therefore, ex parte proceedings were ordered against them. The application for setting aside the ex parte award was dismissed by the MACT. The petitioner-company was duly served and initially represented by his counsel. Subsequently, as nobody appeared on their behalf, therefore, ex parte proceedings were ordered against them. The application for setting aside the ex parte award was dismissed by the MACT. Order 9, Rule 13 CPC postulates that in any case, in which, a decree is passed ex parte against a defendant, he may apply to the Court by which the decree was passed for an order to set it aside; and if he satisfies the Court that the summons was not duly served, or that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called on for hearing, the Court shall make an order setting aside the decree as against him upon such terms as to costs, payment into Court or otherwise as it thinks fit, and shall appoint a day for proceeding with the suit. What cannot possibly be disputed that in the instant case, the company was duly served. Company has miserably failed to prove they were prevented by sufficient cause from appearing in Court, which is a condition precedent for setting aside the ex parte award. The ex parte awards were passed on 4.11.2013 and 25.11.2013; whereas the applications for setting aside the same were filed on 14.6.2014, that too, without an application for condonation of delay. 19. From the grounds mentioned in applications for setting aside ex-parte awards, it is therefore apparent that these are after thought and have been cleverly been drafted, thereby creating illusion of knowledge. This is not permissible under law. Law of limitation has to be applied with its entire rigour, if party fails to demonstrate sufficient cause, otherwise very purpose of limitation act will be rendered inconsequential. Speedy trial especially under M.V. Act is fundamental rights of every person. Liberal approach does not mean company shall be considered better footing than ordinary litigants, while considering the application for setting aside ex-parte decree. Therefore, the MACT has correctly dismissed the applications of petitioner/company for setting aside the ex-parte awards, by means of impugned order which, in substance, is as under challenge. All the revision petitions are dismissed. Copy of order be placed in each file.