Point of law: claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody, including the Government.

ORDER :

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/respondent No. 2 seeking to set aside the order and decree passed in M.V.O.P. No. 267 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Tirupati, dated 03.10.2016.

2. Along with the appeal, the appellant filed I.A. No. 1 of 2021 seeking to condone the delay of 757 days in filing the appeal. The appellant also filed I.A. No. 2 of 2021 seeking to condone the delay of 674 days in re-presenting the above said appeal.

3. The petitioner is the Insurance Company/Appellant and the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are the petitioners/claimants in M.V.O.P. No. 267 of 2013. The parties hereinafter will be referred to as arrayed in the M.V.O.P.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the material available on record.

5. Brief facts of the case are that:

(i) The claimants filed M.V.O.P. No. 267 of 2013, on the file of the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Tirupati, claiming compensation of Rs. 7,50,000/- for the death of the deceased (i.e.) A. Govinda Reddy, who died in a motor accident that took place on 27.06.2012. The 1st claimant is wife, claimants 2 and 3 are children and 4th claimant is mother of the deceased.

(ii) The Tribunal after hearing both sides and upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, was pleased to allow the claim application awarding compensation of Rs. 6,68,500/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition to till the date of deposit into Court with proportionate costs.

(iii) The Tribunal held that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 therein are directed to deposit the compensation awarded in the Court within a month from the date of the award. The Tribunal held that on such deposit, the 1st petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- each and the 4th petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,18,500/-.

(iv) The Tribunal further held that on making such deposit, the petitioners 1 to 4 are permitted to withdraw a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-, Rs. 75,000/-, Rs. 75,000/- and Rs. 43,500/- respectively and rest of the amount ordered to be deposited in State Bank of India, Main Branch, Tirupati for a period of two years.

6. Against the decree and award, dated 03.10.2016 in M.V.O.P. No. 267 of 2013 passed by the Tribunal, the Insurance Company/Appellant, who is the 2nd respondent therein, filed the present appeal. Along with the appeal, the Insurance Company/ Appellant filed I.A. No. 1 of 2021 seeking to condone the delay of 757 days in filing the appeal and also filed I.A. No. 2 of 2021 seeking to condone the delay of 674 days in re-presenting the said appeal.

7. In the affidavit filed along with I.A. No. 1 of 2021, the reasons stated by the appellant at Para No. 3 for the delay occurred in filing the appeal as extracted hereunder:

“Para No. 3: I submit that, the order in question was pronounced on 03.10.2016 in copy application was filed on 11.10.2016. The same was delivered on 14.09.2017. The certified copies of the subject matter of the order and decree were mixed with other records at our office. In spite of our best efforts we could not trace the same till today, thus there was a delay of 757 days in the above said appeal. Thus there is no absolutely willful latches on my part in the above matter.”

8. In the affidavit filed along with I.A. No. 2 of 2021, the reasons stated by the appellant at Para No. 4 for the delay occurred in re-presenting the appeal as extracted hereunder:

“Para No. 4: I submit that, at the time of shifting of the office, the bundle of this case mixed with some other files at our office. Later, due to the blow out of Covid-19 pandemic situation, I could not represent the file, in time i.e. 01.12.2019. Thus, there was a delay of 674 days was occurred in re-presenting the matter. Thus, there is no absolutely willful latches on my part in the above matter.”