JUDGMENT M.P. Kenia, J.
1. There is absolutely no merit in this First Appeal From Order, the facts leading up to the same being that on the day in question, the claimant was sitting on a bridge at about 7.30 in the morning on Deograh-Lalitpur road when truck No. MPI 3364 found by the Trial Court to have been driven in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, went and dashed against that bridge with the result that the claimant got caught between the truck and the bridge and sustained injuries on his right leg which was fractured at two places below the knee and had also suffered injuries in other parts of the body like the waist, the head, etc. The claimant filed this case under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the appellant being the driver of the truck in question on the day when the aforesaid incident took place. The matter was fixed for filing his written statement on a particular day when the written statement was not filed. It came up for hearing on 8th of May, 1992 when the orders were issued for ex parte hearing in the matter and on the 30th of July 1992, the appellant gave an application for setting aside the order for ex parte hearing, which application was dismissed on 14th of August, 1992 because again on the said date also the appellant was not present; where after on 22nd of August, 1992 the matter was decided ex parte. Thereafter the appellant moved an application for setting aside the decree passed ex parte on 22nd of August, 1992 which was passed by the learned Judge awarding a sum of Rs. 45,000/- as compensation to the claimant as set out in the judgment/award of the Court dated 22nd of August, 1992 passed in Claim Petition No. 155 of 1991 by the Additional District Judge, Lalitpur/Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Lalitpur. In the affidavit filed in support of his application to set aside the award ex parte all that the appellant has stated is that for the previous five months, the appellant was very ill and therefore, he could not come to Court or take appropriate proceedings and that the decree had been obtained by the claimant taking advantage of the appellant's absence. Significantly, no mention is made in the said affidavit with regard to what illness the appellant suffered nor has any indication given of his having been treated by any one much less any medical certificate annexed. At the hearing of the said application, which took place on 18th of April, 1994, it appears that some medical certificate was produced on behalf of the appellant which was not found acceptable to the Court below. The Court below took note of the fact that the order for placing the matter for ex parte hearing was passed on 8th May, 1992; thereafter on 30th of July, 1992 the appellant had moved an application for setting aside the said order directing the matter to be heard ex parte (when he was well enough to come to Court as against his case of illness for five months) but thereafter at the hearing of the said application on 14th of August, 1992 he again remained absent as a result whereof his application dated 30th July, 1992 had to be dismissed. Thereafter on 22nd of August, 1992 when the matter came up for ex parte hearing but on account of his absence the decree was passed.
3. No particulars whatsoever, have been furnished by the appellant before the lower Court with regard to the date/s when he fell ill, the nature of his illness and even the certificate that he produced, was produced 12 months after his alleged illness as a result whereof the Court below was not willing to attach any significance to that certificate. Before me, too, a copy of that certificate has not been produced, even for perusal. On the aforesaid factual background the application for setting aside the ex parte order does not appear to have been made bona fide nor has it been prosecuted with due diligence and a belated application moved before me for time to file a supplementary affidavit to produce the copy of the certificate before me, does not in my view alter the basic facts mentioned above and would only cause further delay in the matter. There is absolutely no substance in this First Appeal From Order which is liable to stand rejected summarily.
4. I must make it clear that I have advisedly not passed any comments on the merits of the impugned award as the said aspect of the matter is not before me though, I am informed at the bar that the said decree on its merits, has not been challenged in any higher forum so far. The First Appeal From Order is rejected summarily.