Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
BATTU DEVANAND, J.
APSRTC REP BY ITS VICE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR - Petitioner
Vs.
NILAPALA SATYAVATHI - Respondent
M.A.C.M.A.Nos.32 & 33 of 2022
Decided On : 04-02-2022
Limitation Act - Section 5 - Claiming compensation - Award – Condonation of delay - Claimants claiming compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- for the death of the deceased -1st claimant is the wife and the 2nd claimant is the son of the deceased - claimants filed M.V.O.P.No.71 of 2017 on the file of the learned Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Bhimavaram, claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of the deceased who died in a motor accident that took place - claimant is the second wife and the 2nd and 3rd claimants are the daughters of the deceased – Slaim 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.
Finding of the Court:
Rutine explanation would not be enough but it should be in the nature of indicating “sufficient cause” to justify the delay which will depend on the backdrop of each case and will have to be weighed carefully by the Courts based on the fact situation. In the case of Katiji (Supra) the entire conspectus relating to condonation of delay has been kept in focus. However, what cannot also be lost sight is that the consideration therein was in the background of dismissal of the application seeking condonation of delay in a case where there was delay of four days pitted against the consideration that was required to be made on merits regarding the upward revision of compensation amounting to 800 per cent - delay in the instant facts in filing the LPA is 916 days and as such the consideration to condone can be made only if there is reasonable explanation and the condonation cannot be merely because the appellant is public body.
Result: Appeals is hereby dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
M.A.C.M.A.Nos.32 and 33 of 2022 have been filed by the appellant/A.P.S.R.T.C. seeking to set aside the order and decree passed in M.V.O.P.Nos.57 and 71 of 2017 on the file of the learned Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Bhimavaram, dated 30.7.2019.
2. Along with the appeals, the appellant filed I.A.No.1 of 2022 in both the appeals seeking to condone the delay of 730 days and 873 days respectively in preferring the appeals.
3. In I.A.No.1 of 2022 in M.A.C.M.A.No.32 of 2022, the petitioner is A.P.S.R.T.C./appellant and the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the petitioners/claimants in M.V.O.P.No.57 of 2017.
4. In I.A.No.1 of 2022 in M.A.C.M.A.No.33 of 2022, the petitioner is A.P.S.R.T.C./appellant and the respondent Nos.1 to 3 are the petitioners/claimants in M.V.O.P.No.71 of 2017. The parties hereinafter will be referred to as arrayed in the MVOP.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the material available on record.
5. Brief facts of the case are that:
(ii) In the second case, the claimants filed M.V.O.P.No.71 of 2017 on the file of the learned Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Bhimavaram, claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of the deceased i.e., Nilapala Baburao, who died in a motor accident that took place on 19.10.2016. The 1st claimant is the second wife and the 2nd and 3rd claimants are the daughters of the deceased.
(iii) The Tribunal, after hearing both sides and upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, was pleased to allow the claim applications in part awarding compensation of Rs.7,99,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition to till the date of payment with proportionate costs.
(iv) The Tribunal held that respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the amount of compensation with proportionate costs and subsequent interest within two months from the date of the order to the credit of the matter. The Tribunal held that from the half share of amount of Rs.3,99,500/-, an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- with entire proportionate costs + proportionate subsequent interest thereon, including half share in the amount of loss of consortium shall be apportioned to the 1st petitioner in O.P.No.57 of 2017 and the same shall be released to her without depositing the same or part of the same in any Bank. The Tribunal held that balance amount of Rs.1,49,500/- with proportionate interest thereon shall be apportioned to 2nd petitioner in O.P.No.57 of 2017 and the same shall be released to him without depositing the same or part of the same in any Bank. The Tribunal further held that from the half share of amount of Rs.3,99,500/-, an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- with entire proportionate costs + proportionate subsequent interest thereon, including half share in the amount of loss of consortium shall be apportioned to 1st petitioner in O.P.No.71 of 2017 and the same shall be released to her without depositing the same or part of the same in any Bank. The Tribunal further held that from balance amount of Rs.1,99,500/-, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with proportionate interest thereon shall be apportioned to 2nd petitioner in O.P.No.71 of 2017 and the same shall be released to her without depositing the same or part of the same in any Bank. The Tribunal further held that the balance amount of Rs.99,500/- with proportionate interest thereon shall be apportioned to 3rd petitioner in O.P.No.71/2017 and the same shall be released to her without depositing the sam
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
