2014 Supreme(Raj) 1725
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Banwari Lal Sharma, J.
Matri and others - Appellant
Versus
Takht Singh and others - Respondent
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 3701 of 2011.
Decided On : 23-09-2014
For the Appellants:Deepak Menaria, Advocate.
For the Respondents:L.D. Khatri and Shambhoo Singh, Advocates.
Insufficiency of grounds for condonation of delay and adequacy of awarded compensation
Headnote:
Condonation of Delay - Motor Accident Claims - Insufficient Ground for Condonation of Delay
Fact of the Case:
The appellants appealed for enhancement of award amount passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, which was barred by 152 days. They sought condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, citing delay in obtaining certified copy of the judgment and award.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the application for condonation of delay, stating that the grounds presented were insufficient. On considering the appeal on merit, the court found the awarded compensation to be adequate and dismissed the appeal as time-barred and on merits.
Issues: Condonation of delay, adequacy of awarded compensation
Ratio Decidendi: The court found the grounds for condonation of delay to be insufficient and upheld the awarded compensation as adequate.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed as time-barred and on merits.
JUDGMENT
1. - Heard.
2. The appellants have preferred this appeal for enhancement of award amount passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Doongarpur, Camp Sagwada in Claim Case No. 23/2007 (255/2005) dated 27.3.2009, which is barred by 152 days.
3. Application seeking condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed by the appellants on the ground that Counsel of the appellants applied for certified copy of the impugned and award dated 27.3.2009 on 1.4.2009, which was obtained on 10.4.2009 by their Counsel. The appellants are residing in the village. In the month of November, 2009, they made an inquiry about this judgment and award, then it was informed about obtaining the certified copies by their Counsel at Doongarpur. Thereafter, they preferred this appeal.
4. This ground cannot be said as sufficient ground for condonation of delay. The application for condonation of delay is, therefore, dismissed.
5. On considering the appeal .on merit also, it reveals that at the time of accident the age of the deceased was 60 years and the learned Tribunal applied the multiplier of 5 after deduction of 1/3rd amount on account of personal expenditure and Rs. 34,000/- were awarded under the head of consortium and love and affection and Rs. 5,000/- were awarded for cremation. In all, a total amount of Rs. 1,49,000/- were awarded as compensation, which cannot be said to be inadequate.
6. Thus, in view of the above, the appeal stands dismissed as time barred as well on merits. .Appeal dismissed.
*******
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
