Vague and generalized averments in an application for condonation of delay do not constitute 'sufficient cause' for the exercise of discretion under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

1. - The matter comes up on an application No.37/2014 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of 287 days delay in filing the appeal under Section 30 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 against the judgment dated 26.11.2012, passed by the Employee's Compensation Commissioner, Jaipur City, dismissing the claim petition filed by the claimants-appellants (hereinafter 'the claimants') holding that the employment of the deceased Shankar Lal Choudhary as a Khallasi with truck No. RJ-14-2G-3114 insured with the IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd. was not proved.

2. I have heard the counsel for the claimants and perused the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

3. The only ground proffered for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is that the claimants are resident of a village not connected with the main road and were in fact traumatized by the death of their only son. It has been stated that in these circumstances, the claimants did not contact the counsel who was contesting their case before the learned Commissioner for a while and when indeed they did telephonically, they came to know that the claim petition filed by them had been dismissed. Thereafter the claimants are stated to have spent time for arranging counsel's fee and then come to Jaipur such that the appeal against the impugned order dated 26.11.2012 could be filed.

4. The averments in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 287 days are as vague as they can be. The averments are of a generalised character without any requisite specifics to infuse confidence in this Court for finding sufficient cause for the exercise of its discretion under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It is apparent from the averment under Section 5 of the Limitation Act application that the claimants had the telephone number of their counsel and it was thus for them to stay in contact with their counsel with diligence to keep a tab on the proceedings in their claim petition. It is also stated that there were some calculation mistake in computing limitation. This averment is also again in a vacuum without any material facts for this Court to feel satisfied that it constitutes "sufficient cause" and discretion on this count for condoning the delay under the Limitation Act should be exercised.

5. In the event limitation of as long as 287 days were to be condoned as a matter of course, on vague averments without any material facts, the whole purpose of prescription of Limitation for taking remedies in law would be defeated. The Limitation Act would be reduced to a formality easily circumvented, law defeated and its underlying public policy negated.From the facts stated in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, not even a good cause what of "sufficient cause" for condonation of delay in filing the appeal can be made out.

6. Consequently, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation is without force. The same is dismissed. So as the appeal.Application U/S 5 of Limitation Act Dismissed.

*******