Point of Law: Motor Accident - Limitation - Delay in filing petition stands satisfactorily explained by giving plausible and satisfactory explanation and, findings returned by MACT Circuit are contrary to record and not sustainable.

JUDGMENT :

VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, J.

1. Petitioner has approached this Court against order dated 10.04.2019, passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal- II (in short ‘MACT’) Kangra at Dharamshala, Circuit at Nurpur, H.P. in Civil Misc. Application No. 13-N/IV/2015, titled as Chetan vs. Jagroop Singh and Another, whereby application preferred by the petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act (in short ‘Limitation Act’) for condonation of delay in filing application under Order 9 Rules 4 and 8 of Civil Procedure Code (CPC), read with Section 151 of CPC, for restoration of MACP No. 12-N/13/2009, titled as Chetan vs. Jagroop Singh etc. has been dismissed.

2. On 26.11.2009, petitioner had filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as M.V. Act) for compensation against respondents and Insurance Company, name whereof was to be disclosed by respondents, for suffering multiple injuries in a road accident caused by car being driven by respondent No. 1, which was owned by respondent No. 2. Petition remained pending adjudication before MACT-II at Dharamshala till 22.08.2013. Thereafter, it was transferred to Circuit Court of MACT-II at Nurpur and before Circuit Court, at Nurpur on 25.04.2014, it was adjourned for 09.05.2014 in presence of learned counsel for parties. Order dated 25.04.2014 reads as under:-

“25.04.2014

Present:

Sh. Sachit Sharma Ld.Advocate vice for the petitioner.

Sh. Pankaj Chauhan Ld. Advocate for respondent.

Reply to the application under order 6 Rule 17 CPC read with order 1 Rule 10 CPC and section 151 not filed. Time prayed. Considered and allowed. Now for reply and consideration file be listed on 9.5.2014.”

3. Record reveals that on 09.05.2014, it was taken up by the MACT-II at Dharamshala and for non representation of and on behalf of the petitioner, it was dismissed in default.

4. It is case of the petitioner that petitioner belongs to Village falling in jurisdiction of Nurpur and, therefore, case was transferred to Circuit Court at Nurpur and was pending adjudication at Nurpur till 25.04.2014 on which date it was adjourned for 09.05.2014 and in the order dated 25.04.2014 it was nowhere mentioned that on 09.05.2014 case would be listed at Dharamshala and, therefore, petitioner and his learned counsel were under the impression that case was to be listed at Nurpur in Circuit Court. However, on 09.05.2014, petitioner on reaching Court at Nurpur had found that there was no Circuit Court at Nurpur and on inquiry from the Advocate, he was informed that now as and when Circuit Court would be available at Nurpur, the case would be taken and notice of next date of hearing would be issued and, therefore, petitioner was advised to wait and as such kept on waiting, but ultimately when no notice was received till December 2014, petitioner approached learned counsel again, whereupon, on inquiry, it transpired that petition had been taken up for hearing at Dharamshala on 09.05.2014 and was dismissed in default for non appearance of and on behalf of the petitioner and on the very same day i.e. 19.12.2014 when it came in notice copy of order sheet was applied which was attested and ready on 23.02.2015, but no proposed date of delivery of copy was given by the Copying Agency as also evident from the stamp of Copying Agency, the copy was received on 23.03.2015 and thereafter applications under Order 9 Rules 4 and 8 CPC and under Section 5 of Limitation Act were prepared on 31.03.2015 and filed on 02.04.2015.

5. Points for determination were framed on 08.06.2017 and after examination of witnesses by the parties, application under Section 5 of Limitation Act was dismissed on 10.04.2019 which has been assailed in present petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner, after filing claim petition on 26.11.2009, was continuously pursuing the same for five years, till the time when it was dismissed in default. Petitioner had received injuries, for treatment wher