JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal filed by one Rattan Kumar, owner of vehicle No.JK11-6530, is directed against order dated 31.01.2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajouri, whereby the application filed by the appellant for setting aside ex-parte award dated 28.03.2016 has been dismissed being barred by limitation. It is submitted that a claim petition was filed by respondent No.2 seeking compensation on account of 50% permanent disablement suffered by him in a motor vehicle accident that happed on 26th October, 2012 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No.JK11-6530 by its driver. 2. The appellant, on being put on notice, appeared before the Tribunal and filed detailed objections and took a specific plea that the offending vehicle, at the time of accident, was fully insured with respondent No.1 and, therefore, the Insurance Company was liable to indemnify the appellant and pay compensation to respondent No.2. It submitted that on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, three issues were framed and the Tribunal after evaluating the evidence on record, awarded a sum of Rs.4,15,000/- as compensation along with interest @7.5% per annum in favour of respondent No.2 but erroneously placed the resultant liability on the appellant on the ground that as per copy of the insurance policy on record, the offending vehicle, at the time of accident, was not insured with respondent No.1. The Tribunal, thus, absolved respondent No.1 of its liability to indemnify the appellant and to pay compensation to respondent No.2. 3. It is pleaded that the appellant being a senior citizen was not attending the proceedings before the Tribunal in person but had engaged the services of an advocate. He had filed objections and had also requested the learned advocate to contest the matter on his behalf. However, it transpires that due to negligence of the learned counsel, the claim petition was not contested and the appellant was proceeded ex-parte on 28.10.2015. The claim petition was accordingly, decided in ex-parte. The appellant submits that he had hundred percent case to defend his interest. It is further submitted that the offending vehicle was insured with respondent No.1 w.e.f. 28.11.2011 to 27.11.2012, which covers the date of accident, which, in the instant case happened on 26.10.2012. The claim petition was accordingly, decided in ex-parte. The appellant submits that he had hundred percent case to defend his interest. It is further submitted that the offending vehicle was insured with respondent No.1 w.e.f. 28.11.2011 to 27.11.2012, which covers the date of accident, which, in the instant case happened on 26.10.2012. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the aforesaid fact could not be brought to the notice of the Tribunal because of the omission on part of the learned counsel to defend his interests before the Tribunal. 4. The application was considered by the Tribunal and vide order impugned, the Tribunal rejected the application on the ground that the same was belated and there was no specific application seeking condonation of delay. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I am of the view that having regard to the nature of defence, which the appellant-owner proposes to offer and also considering that the Rules of Civil Procedure Code do not apply to the summary proceedings under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act with all rigors. The Tribunal should have adopted a liberal approach and permitted the appellant to contest the claim petition. It may be noted that had the ex-parte award passed against the appellant been set aside and the appellant permitted to place on record the insurance policy of the offending vehicle covering the date of accident, the liability as per the award, perhaps, could have been put on the respondent No.1-insurer. 6. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1-insurer, resisted the appeal on the ground that the order impugned passed by the Tribunal is in consonance with law. The belated application filed by the appellant for setting aside the ex-parte award was not accompanied by any application seeking condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Therefore, the Tribunal had no option but to dismiss the same being barred by limitation. 7. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 may be technically correct but we cannot forget that the proceedings under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act are summary proceedings and are not circumscribed by the rigors of Civil Procedure Code and the Limitation Act. The owner has equal right to appear in the proceedings and contest the same on all possible grounds available to it. The owner has equal right to appear in the proceedings and contest the same on all possible grounds available to it. Instant case, on the face of it, is a case of negligence on part of the learned counsel to effectively defend the interests of the appellant. As rightly contended, the appellant being a senior citizen was dependent upon his counsel but was never informed that he had been proceeded ex-parte. 8. Be that as it is, the fact remains that when technical considerations are pitted against the substantial justice, it is the latter that prevails. 9. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is accepted and the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal. The Tribunal, on receipt of copy of this order, shall put all the parties to notice and give adequate opportunities to the appellant to place on record copy of the insurance policy and to prove the same, if required.