Back
2020 Supreme(Mad) 123
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Pondicherry - Appellant
Versus
Vasanthi & Others - Respondent
M.P. No. 3 of 2013 in C.M.A.SR No. 94640 of 2012
Decided On : 04-03-2020
For the Petitioner:M. Krishnamoorthy, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1 & R3, Not Ready in Notice, R2, Ex Parte.
Condonation of delay is a discretionary power and must be supported by sufficient cause, with the need for candid and acceptable reasons.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Delay in Filing Appeal - Condonation of Delay
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a Miscellaneous Petition to condone the delay of 504 days in filing an appeal against a judgment and decree passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the reasons provided for the delay were not acceptable, as the papers were misplaced and the delay was not adequately justified. The Court emphasized that condonation of delay is a discretionary power and must be exercised judiciously with valid and acceptable reasons.
Issues: Delay in filing the appeal, grounds for condonation of delay, exercise of discretionary power
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that condonation of delay is an exception under the law of limitation and must be supported by sufficient cause. The Court emphasized the need for candid and acceptable reasons for condoning delay, and the exercise of discretionary powers with proper justification.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the Miscellaneous Petition and rejected the appeal at the SR Stage, citing the lack of acceptable reasons for condoning the delay.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: This Miscellaneous Petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to condone the delay in filing the CMA SR No.94640 of 2012 against the judgment and decree dated 11.02.2011 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Principal District Court-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Villupuram in MCOP No.525 of 2008.)
1. The present Miscellaneous Petition is filed to condone the delay of 504 days in filing the appeal, challenging the the judgment and decree dated 11.02.2011 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Principal District Court-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Villupuram in MCOP No.525 of 2008.
2. The reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of this miscellaneous petition is that the papers were sent to the Regional Office for taking further action who had forwarded the same to the Appeal Panel Lawyer at Chennai, seeking his opinion. He had asked for the copy of the claim petition and the counter statement and our Lower Court counsel was asked to send the same. On receiving the requisite documents, opinion was given suggesting to file an appeal. The papers were misplaced and after tracing out, the papers were sent to the petitioner's counsel for filing the appeal and the appeal is being filed on 02.11.2012 resulting in the delay of 504 days in filing the appeal.
3. The appellant is the New India Assurance Company Limited, Pondicherry. The authorities of the New India Assurance Company Limited are bound to act vigilantly in the interest of public as they are dealing with the public funds. The reasons stated that the papers were misplaced is certainly unacceptable and the Competent Authorities are bound to initiate action against all the officials, who all are responsible for the lapses, negligence and dereliction of duty.
4. The officials, who all are receiving decent salary from the public money are bound to function vigilantly and prudently. Casual way of dealing with public funds can never be tolerated and the Authorities Competent are also duty bound to institute immediate and stringent action against all such officials, who all are responsible for the lapses, negligence and dereliction of duty. Thus, by simply stating that papers were misplaced and after tracing out, the papers were sent to the counsel for the petitioner for filing an appeal, cannot be an acceptable ground for the purpose of condoning the huge delay. A meager delay can be condoned if the reasons are otherwise acceptable. However, enormous delay cannot be condoned in a mechanical manner.
5. Every appeal is to be filed, within the period of limitation. Condonation of delay is a discretionary power and an exception while exercising the power of discretion, the Courts are also bound to act judiciously and the reasons for such condonations are also to be recorded. In the absence of any valid and acceptable reasons, the Court would not condone the enormous delay in filing the appeal.
6. The condone delay petition is filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The appeal is to be filed within the period of limitation prescribed under Section 173(1) of the said Act. Accordingly, 90 days time limit is contemplated. The Proviso Clause to Section 173(1) stipulates that the High Court may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of 90 days, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal in time. Thus, there must be sufficient cause for delay and the reasons stated for such an enormous delay in filing the appeal is also to be explained and must be an acceptable one.
7. Law of Limitation as contemplated under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act is the law. The condonation of delay is an exception under the proviso clause. Thus, the condonation of delay can never be a mechanical affair and the High Court cannot condone the delay in a routine manner. When the law provides limitation for preferring an appeal
