Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
BATTU DEVANAND, J.
Regional Manager – Appellant
Versus
Nilapala Nageswaramma – Respondent
M.A.C.M.A. Nos. 32, 33 of 2022
Decided On : 04-02-2022
Delay in Filing Appeals - Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal - Motor Vehicles Act - [Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988] - The court dismissed the appeals filed by APSRTC seeking to set aside the order and decree passed in M.V.O.P. Nos. 57 and 71 of 2017 due to a delay of 730 and 873 days in filing the appeals. The court found that the reasons stated for the delay were vague and the appellant failed to show sufficient cause to condone the delay. The court emphasized the importance of introducing the concept of reasonableness while giving the clause 'sufficient cause' a liberal interpretation and highlighted the need to distinguish cases where the delay is of few days from cases where the delay is inordinate, which might accrue to the prejudice of the rights of the other party. The court cited various rulings to support its decision and emphasized that the law of limitation binds everyone, including government bodies, and condonation of delay should not be used as an anticipated benefit for them.
Fact of the Case:
The appeals were filed by APSRTC 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 Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal. The appellant filed I.A. No. 1 of 2022 in both the appeals seeking to condone the delay of 730 days and 873 days in filing the appeals.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the reasons stated for the delay were vague and the appellant failed to show sufficient cause to condone the delay of 730 and 873 days in filing the appeals. The court emphasized the importance of introducing the concept of reasonableness while giving the clause 'sufficient cause' a liberal interpretation and highlighted the need to distinguish cases where the delay is of few days from cases where the delay is inordinate, which might accrue to the prejudice of the rights of the other party. The court cited various rulings to support its decision and emphasized that the law of limitation binds everyone, including government bodies, and condonation of delay should not be used as an anticipated benefit for them.
Issues: The main issue was whether the delay of 730 and 873 days in filing the appeals by APSRTC should be condoned.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of introducing the concept of reasonableness while giving the clause 'sufficient cause' a liberal interpretation and highlighted the need to distinguish cases where the delay is of few days from cases where the delay is inordinate, which might accrue to the prejudice of the rights of the other party. The court cited various rulings to support its decision and emphasized that the law of limitation binds everyone, including government bodies, and condonation of delay should not be used as an anticipated benefit for them.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeals filed by APSRTC seeking to set aside the order and decree passed in M.V.O.P. Nos. 57 and 71 of 2017 due to a delay of 730 and 873 days in filing the appeals. The court found that the reasons stated for the delay were vague and the appellant failed to show sufficient cause to condone the delay. The court emphasized the importance of introducing the concept of reasonableness while giving the clause 'sufficient cause' a liberal interpretation and highlighted the need to distinguish cases where the delay is of few days from cases where the delay is inordinate, which might accrue to the prejudice of the rights of the other party. The court cited various rulings to support its decision and emphasized that the law of limitation binds everyone, including government bodies, and condonation of delay should not be used as an anticipated benefit for them.
JUDGMENT :
BATTU DEVANAND, J.
1. 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 APSRTC/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 APSRTC/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.
4.1 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
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 limi....
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. T....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of 'sufficient cause' for condoning delay in filing appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the prescribed period, emphasizing the need for a justice-oriented appr....
The court must prioritize establishing 'sufficient cause' for inordinate delay before examining the merits of the appeal; liberal interpretation of limitation does not permit the condonation of gross....
Section 173 provides that, any person aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal may approach the High Court within ninety days. However, the second proviso states that the High Court “may” still ....
The court held that mere excuses do not constitute sufficient cause for condoning a significant delay in filing an appeal, emphasizing the need for diligence in pursuing legal remedies.
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
