PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

( 1 ) BY way of the present application, appellants pray that delay in filing the appeal be condoned.

( 2 ) APPELLANT No. 1 is the sole proprietor of appellant No. 2. A Maruti Car bearing No. DL-4c 1136 was purchased by appellant No. 1 in the name of his sole proprietory firm. The motor vehicle hit a cyclist on GT karnal Road near Kokli Turning Point. Unfortunately, the cyclist died. Accident took place on 13. 4. 99 at about 3. 30 P. M. Wife, children, father and mother of the deceased filed a claim petition under the M. V. Act, 1988. They claimed compensation against the appellants and the new India Assurance Company Limited, the insurance company with whom appellants had got the motor vehicle insured.

( 3 ) AT the end of the trial, learned MACT held that the death of the deceased was caused due to the rash and negligent manner in which appellant No. 1 was driving the motor vehicle. Compensation in sum of Rs. 4,33,800/- was assessed.

( 4 ) ON the issue of the liability of the insurance company, learned MACT held that the driving licence of the first appellant was fake and accordingly, learned mact held that the insurance company would be permitted to recover the compensation amount from the appellants herein.

( 5 ) AWARD was pronounced on 7. 2. 2004. Appeal has been preferred on 1. 7. 2005. After excluding the time spent on obtaining the certified copy and 90 days period available for filing the appeal, there is a delay of 416 days in filing the appeal.

( 6 ) APPELLANTS pray that delay in filing the appeal be condoned. Sufficient cause stated is that counsel engaged by the appellants stopped appearing in the proceedings on 7. 7. 2003. On said date, appellants were proceeded ex-parte. Accordingly, appellants were not aware that the award was pronounced on 7. 2. 2004. Appellants received a notice of execution when the insurance company, after making payments to the claimant proceeded to recover the same from the appellants in terms of the award. Appellants state that they engaged a counsel who filed objections in the execution proceedings. The objections were dismissed on 25. 2. 2005. It is pleaded in the application that after objections were dismissed, appellants took opinion from another counsel who advised that appeal should be filed. Thereafter, certified copy of the award was applied for on 30. 5. 2005. It was obtained on 1. 6. 2005. Appeal was accordingly prepared and filed.

( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants, relied upon air 1987 SC 1352 Naubat Ram Sharma Vs. Additional district Judge II, Moradabad and others to urge that counsel s fault should not visit the client with penal consequences. Counsel also relied upon AIR 1987 SC 1353 collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji and Ors. to urge that sufficient cause should be construed liberally. Reliance was also placed on the decisions reported as JT 2001 (1) SC 267 Chhabi Kulavi and Anr. Vs. Ganesh Chandra mondal; JT 2000 (Suppl. 1) SC 209 State of Bihar Vs. Nilamani Jha; JT 2000 (Suppl. 1) SC 211 B. T. Rai vs. Ramanna Gowda and Ors. ; and AIR 1981 SC 1400 Rafiq and anr. Vs. Munshilal and Anr. to urge that counsel s inaction should not result in the litigant suffering.

( 8 ) IT is true that in an adversial litigation, clients repose faith in their advocate and having paid the fee and given requisite instructions to their lawyer, a party would be fully justified in being confident that his lawyer would discharge his professional obligations. Therefore, where it is brought on record that a party has done everything in its power to effectively participate in a proceedings, courts should be liberal in construing sufficient cause and should lean in favour of such party. A litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging appeals at a belated stage. Whenever substantial justice and technical consideration are opposed to each other, cause of substantial justice has to be preferred. Justice oriented approach has to be taken by a court. However, this d

Click Here to Read the rest of this document