1. All these petitions preferred by Oriental Insurance Company Limited seek condonation of delay in filing appeals against award dated 29-01-2005 of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Jammu, allowing Claim Petition nos. 161, 173, 280 & 279, awarding an amount of Rs.75,000/-, Rs.1,22,000/-, Rs.5,18,000/- and Rs.1,13,000/, respectively along with interest @ 9% per annum pendente lite and till its realization.

2. All the claimants had been traveling by Bus No. JKU-4571 on their journey to Patnitop on 02-04-2000, when because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver, it rolled down into a nallah resulting in the death of many, including the wife of respondent Arun Kumar T.Pancholi and injuries to others, including the respondents. Respondent Kalavani had to loose her five months old foetus, besides suffering damage to her spleen and receiving injuries on other parts of the body which considerably reduced existing force in the left hand and left foot because of which she was permanently disabled to earn her living. Respondent S.D.Sahare, who was working as a Warrant Officer in 908 FPO C/o 56 A.P.O and getting a salary of Rs.8000/- per month, suffered multiple fractures over his body, which resulted in reduction of power in his left hand and left foot.

3. To decide the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal had framed four issues which read thus:-

1. "Whether an accident took place on 2.4.2000 at Jhajar Kotli due to rash and negligent driving by respondent No.1 causing bodily injuries to petitioners Kalavani, S.D.Sahare, Arun Kumar, Ratna Mala and death of Aruna Pancholi who was traveling by the Bus No.JKU/4571? OPP

2. If issue no. 1 is proved in affirmative what is the amount of compensation to which the petitioners are entitled to and from whom? OPP

3. Whether the erring driver was not in possession of a valid and effective driving licence and as such the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured? OPR-1

4. Relief. O.P. Parties."

4. Because the appellant-Insurance Company had not led any evidence in the case, so, relying upon the claimants evidence, the Tribunal passed an award on 29-01-2005, awarding compensation in favour of the respondents as mentioned in the opening part of this order.

5. The appellant-Insurance Company did not prefer any appeal to question the award within the statutory period of limitation. It is after about four hundred and eight (408) days that the appellant company filed appeals in this Court along with applications seeking condonation of thirty four (34) days delay in filing the appeals.

6. As similar pleas have been made by the Insurance Company seeking condonation of delay in filing appeals in all these four petitions, so all of them had been taken up for joint consideration.

Before considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at the Bar, regard needs to be had to the ground pleaded by the Insurance Company to seek condonation of delay.

7. Paragraph nos. 2 to 5 of six paragraphed application of the Insurance Company read thus:-

"2. That the award impugned was passed on 29-01-2005, but the copy of the same has been supplied by the MACT, Jammu only on 12-3-2003. The certified copy of the award impugned has been received in the Divisional Office on 15-03-05 through its defending counsel. Subsequently, after getting the complete record the file was submitted to the Regional Office at Ambala for his legal opinion. But unfortunately during transit the file was misplaced and it was traced on 25.5.2006. Accordingly, on receipt of the file the defending counsel has been directed to file CIMA, who according drafted the CIMA and filed in the Honble Court.

3. That in the connected cases the appeals are filed which are admitted to hearing.

4. That the delay in filing the appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate but because of the circumstances as referred above.

5. That there is delay of 34 days delay in filing the above appeal and the same if not condoned, the petitioner will

Click Here to Read the rest of this document