Full Judgment
D.M. Dharmadhikari, J.
1. In a claim case under the Motor Vehicles Act, an ex-parte awards was passed against the present applicant who is both owner and driver of the truck involved in the accident. The Insurance Company - respondent No. 6 was exonerated of any liability. The present applicant made an application to the Claims Tribunal for setting aside the ex-parte award on the ground that the Insurance Company was exonerated on the basis of the amended plea against which the applicant was never heard.
2. The Claims Tribunal, by order dated 28.1.1993 stayed execution of the award on the application of the applicant but only on the condition of his furnishing within a period of one week from the date of the order, security in the sum of Rs. 3 lakhs for satisfying the award, if ultimately maintained.
3. The Appellant did furnish security for the aforesaid sum; but he was late only by one day. He, therefore, requested the Tribunal to condone the delay of one day and accept the security furnished as a condition of stay of execution of the award. By the impugned order dated 5.2.1993, the Claims Tribunal rejected the prayer stating that the earlier order dated 28.1.1993 granting a week's time for furnishing security was 'automatic order' and non-compliance of the condition has resulted in deprivation of the applicant to claim over.
4. The learned Counsel for the applicant relies on Mahanth Ram Das v. Gangadas : [1961]3SCR763 and contends that the learned Member of the Claims Tribunal was clearly wrong in refusing to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him by holding that it has no power to condone the delay of one day in furnishing security as a condition of stay. The submission made by the learned Counsel for the applicant at the bar appears to be legally sound. The order dated 28.1.1993 does not appear to be peremptory order so as to hold that non-furnishing of security results in automatic vacation of the stay. In any event, if it is so, the power of the Court to condone the delay is never taken swept and such a power is inherent in the Court. In the instant case, there was only one day's delay in furnishing a security and the Claims Tribunal could have condoned the delay and accepted the security as condition of stay.
5. Consequently, the revision in allowed. The impugned order dated 5.2.1993 of the Claims Tribunal is hereby set aside and the application of the applicant for condoning one day's delay in furnishing security is allowed. The security furnished be accepted and Claims Tribunal shall decide the pending application for setting aside the ex-parte order on merits in accordance with law. In the circumstances, I leave the parties to bear their own costs.