Back
2008 Supreme(Mad) 2045
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.K. SASIDHARAN
Lakshmi & Others
Versus
N.A. Nasia & Another
C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)Nos.289 and 290 of 2008
Decided On :Decided On : 27-06-2008
For the Petitioners:T. Selvakumaran, Advocate. For the Respondents:R1, NDW, R2, A.S. Mathialagan, Advocate.
The judiciary should adopt a liberal approach in condoning delay to ensure substantial justice, especially in matters of compensation for accident victims and their legal heirs.
Headnote:
Delay Condonation - Motor Vehicle Accident - Section 166, Section 158(6) - The court discussed the provisions of Section 166 and Section 158(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act, emphasizing the intention of the Parliament to provide compensation to accident victims and their legal heirs without technicalities. The court also referred to the principles of condoning delay as per the Indian Limitation Act and observed that the judiciary should adopt a liberal approach to ensure substantial justice.
Fact of the Case:
The claim petition for compensation on account of a fatal accident was dismissed for default due to the petitioners' absence. They filed an application to restore the claim petition and condone the delay, which was contested by the insurance company. The trial Judge dismissed the applications, leading to the civil revisions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial Judge erred in rejecting the applications to restore the claim petition and condone the delay, emphasizing the ground realities and the intention of the Parliament to provide compensation without technicalities.
Issues: Dismissal of claim petition for default, application to restore claim petition, delay condonation, and the approach of the trial Judge.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need to adopt a liberal approach in condoning delay to ensure substantial justice, especially in matters of compensation for accident victims and their legal heirs.
Final Decision: The civil revision petitions were allowed, setting aside the trial Judge's order, and the Judge was directed to dispose of the claim petition expeditiously.
These two civil revisions are directed against the order dated 01.08.2006 in I.A.Nos.344 and 345 of
2006 in M.C.O.P.No.878 of 2003, respectively, on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli.
2. The claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.878 of 2003 has been preferred by the revision petitioners before the trial Court against the respondents claiming a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- on account of the death of the bread winner of the family in the accident that occurred on 23.04.2003 involving the vehicle owned by the first respondent and insured by the second respondent. Even though the petitioners claimed a sum of Rs.17,05,000/-, the claim was restricted to Rs.4,00,000/- on account of their inability to pay the Court fee for the same.
3. The claim petition was resisted by the second respondent by filing counter, wherein they have admitted the insurance, but disputed the claim on various grounds, including the negligence of the deceased.
4. The matter was subsequently posted on 28.02.2005 for the purpose of enquiry. The first petitioner, being the wife of the deceased, was conducting the proceedings on behalf of the petitioners, as the petitioners 2 to 4 are minors. Since the petitioners failed to appear before the Court on 28.02.2005, the claim petition was dismissed for default on the very same date.
5. Subsequently, the petitioners filed an application to restore the claim petition as well as to condone the delay of 249 days in filing the said application.
6. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, it was the case of the petitioners that they were away from their native place and were residing in a remote place in Karnataka in connection with the employment of the first petitioner and the letter stated to have been sent by the counsel for the petitioners did not reach the hands of the petitioners on time and as such, they failed to appear before the Court on 28.02.2005, which resulted in dismissing the claim petition for default on the very date of the hearing. The delay was accordingly explained by the petitioners and as such, they have prayed for condoning the delay of 249 days in filing the application to set aside the exparte order and to restore the claim petition.
7. The applications in I.A.Nos.344 of 2006 and 345 of 2006 were contested by the second respondent Insurance Company and it was their case that in the hi-tech E-mail era, it cannot be said that the letter sent by the counsel for the petitioners did not reach them on time. Accordingly, the second respondent prayed for dismissal of the application.
8. The learned trial Judge considered the application, like any other civil proceeding and found that each days delay has not been accounted for by the revision petitioners and ultimately, dismissed both the applications as per order dated 01.08.2006. It is the said order, which is impugned in the present revisions.
9. I have heard Mr.T.Selvakumaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.A.S.Mathialagan, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. I have also gone through the order of the learned trial Judge as well as the material pleadings in the matter.
10. It is found from the order impugned in the revisions that the learned trial Judge approached the issue in a hypertechnical manner without understanding the ground realities. It is not the case of the learned trial Judge that the petitioners have been continuously absent and failed to prosecute the claim petition, in spite of due opportunity given to them. The petitioners are the legal heirs of the deceased, and the first petitioner is none other than the wife of the deceased. The accident took place on 23.04.2003 and the petitioners are all residents of Samraj Nagar District in the State of Karnataka. It is evident from the records that the matter was entrusted to a local counsel and the petitioners were far away in their native place. When the petitioners have come up with an explanation that the letter s
