The court emphasized that a party seeking condonation of significant delay must prove sufficient cause with substantial evidence, failing which the appeal will be dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J.

CM APPL. 18372/2022 (Delay)

1. The present application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act on behalf of the appellant seeking condonation of delay of 3738 days in filing the appeal.

2. By way of the present appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter, referred to as the `MV Act') read with Order 43 CPC, the appellant, who is the owner of the offending vehicle, has sought the following reliefs:

"A. Set aside the impugned judgment/award dt. 07/09/2011 passed in suit no. 16397/2011 titled Vida Devi & Anr. Vs. Paramjit & Ors. to the extent wherein recovery rights have been granted to the Insurance Company against the Petitioner herein/Owner of the vehicle; or

B. Set aside the impugned order dt. 21/12/2021 by Dr. Hardeep Kaur, Additional District and Session Judge PO MACT (SE), Saket Courts, New Delhi whereby the application of the petitioner herein under order 9 rule 13 CPC has been dismissed; and

C. Modify the award dt. 07/09/2011/order dt. 21/12/2021 and hold that the petitioner herein/owner of the vehicle is not liable to pay the award/compensation amount to the Insurance Company."

3. Brief facts of the case, as noted by the Tribunal in the impugned order, are as follows:

"2. Brief facts of the case are that on 26.10.2009, deceased Anjanee along with his fellow rider Kundan was going on motorcycle, bearing registration no. BR 1AC 2454. When they reached near Gurudwara Bala Sahib bus stand, suddenly a blue line bus bearing no. DL 1P B 3588 being driven rashly and negligently by respondent no.1 Paramjit Singh hit the said motorcycle due to which deceased and Kundan along with their motorcycle got dragged for about 10 feet. Despite hitting the motorcycle, the blue line bus did not stop and crushed the deceased resulting in his death. His body was removed to AIIMS Trauma Center where the post mortem was conducted."

4. A perusal of the case records would show that the appellant was proceeded ex-parte and while allowing the claim petition, the Tribunal passed the impugned Award on 07.09.2011, thereby granting recovery rights to respondent No.1/Insurance Company against him.

5. After more than 5 years of the date of passing of the Award, on 15.05.2017, the appellant preferred an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC seeking setting aside of the Award, claiming that he was not aware of the proceedings and was proceeded ex-parte. In the said application, it was further claimed that the appellant was assured on behalf of respondent No.1/Insurance Company that the offending vehicle was insured on the date of the accident, and as such, the liability fell on the Company and the appellant need not appear in the matter.

6. During the course of hearing in the present case, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant came to know of the impugned Award only in April 2017, when some officials visited his house. Pursuant to the same, the appellant engaged a Counsel, who inspected the file from record room on 01.05.2017, and thereafter, the appellant came to know that respondent No.1/Insurance Company had initiated execution proceedings against him. Accordingly, the appellant preferred an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC seeking setting aside of the Award.

It was further submitted that during the pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal, the appellant was falsely assured on behalf of respondent No.1/Insurance Compan