Back
2017 Supreme(P&H) 1668
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
AVNEESH JHINGAN, J.
Smt. Ram Rati and another – Appellant
Versus
Heera Lal and others – Respondent
CM No. 20029-CII of 2017 in/and FAO No. 6219 of 2017
Decided On : 07-12-2017
For the Appellant :Mr. Sandeep Verma, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of condoning delay in filing appeals, with a focus on adopting a liberal approach for short delays and a stricter approach for inordinate delays.
Headnote:
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166 - 166 - 5, 14 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and cited case law to highlight the importance of condoning delay in filing appeals. The court emphasized that the law of limitation is founded on public policy and that a liberal approach should be adopted for condoning short delays, but a stricter approach should be taken for inordinate delays.
Fact of the Case:
Pinki, aged 16 years, lost her life in a motor vehicular accident. A claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The appeal against the award was filed for enhancement of compensation, accompanied by an application for condoning the delay of 2247 days.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the explanation for condonation of delay was not acceptable, emphasizing that the law of limitation is founded on public policy and that a liberal approach should be adopted for condoning short delays, but a stricter approach should be taken for inordinate delays.
Issues: The issues involved the condonation of delay in filing the appeal and the sufficiency of the explanation provided for the delay.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of condoning delay in filing appeals, citing case law to support the need for a liberal approach for short delays and a stricter approach for inordinate delays.
Final Decision: The application for condonation of delay was dismissed, and consequently, the appeal was also dismissed as time-barred.
AVNEESH JHINGAN, J.
1. This appeal has been filed against the award dated 28.10.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rewari (for short, ‘the Tribunal').
2. Pinki, aged 16 years, lost her life in a motor vehicular accident that occurred on 05.09.2009. She was struck by a rashly and negligently driven truck bearing registration No. HR-47-6575. As a result of the accident, she lost her life.
3. A claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act') was instituted by the legal heirs of the deceased on 16.10.2009.
4. The Tribunal, vide award dated 28.10.2010, awarded a sum of Rs.3,05,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
5. Aggrieved of the said award, the present appeal has been filed for enhancement of compensation. The appeal is accompanied by an application (CM No. 20029-CII of 2017) for condoning the delay of 2247 days.
6. The explanation put forth for condonation of delay is that the applicants received certified copy of the award on 09.11.2010 but they never knew that they can file further appeal. Moreover, they were in shock due to death of Pinki. It is further stated that the applicants are poor and illiterate persons, therefore, they did not know further recourse. It was only in the first week of March, 2017 that the applicants' counsel gave them advise regarding filing of the appeal.
7. The explanation given is not worth acceptance. Firstly, it is to be noticed that Pinki lost her life on 05.09.2009. The claim petition was filed on 16.10.2009, i.e. within one and half months of the accident. The said claim petition was duly pursued and evidence was adduced. Certified copy of the award dated 28.10.2010 was provided to the applicants on 09.11.2010. The claim petition was filed and was pursued, during the said period, approximately one year had passed. The explanation that the applicants were in shock and hence could not file the appeal cannot be accepted. There is no doubt that the mother who had lost her young child will remain in shock and would be suffering for rest of her life but the fact remains that inspite of all these events, the claim petition was filed within one and half months of the death and one year thereafter, it is stated that because of shock of death of the girl, further appeal was not filed.
8. It has further been stated that the applicants are poor and illiterate people and did not know the further recourse. This explanation can also not be accepted. They had engaged a lawyer who had filed the claim petition. The certified copy of the award was received by them. At that stage, neither it has been stated nor it is expected that the counsel will not advise them that the said award is further appealable.
9. There is no explanation coming that what was the instance in March, 2017 that the applicants met the counsel after almost six and half years and sought advise regarding further course of action. It just appears to be a made up story to cover the inordinate delay.
10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and another, 2010 (5) SCC 459 held as under :-
“8. We have considered the respective submissions. The law of limitation is founded on public policy. The legislature does not prescribe limitation with the object of destroying the rights of the parties but to ensure that they do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek remedy without delay. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a period fixed by the legislature. To put it differently, the law of limitation prescribes a period within which legal remedy can be availed for redress of the legal injury. At the same time, the courts are bestowed with the power to condone the delay, if sufficient cause is shown for not availing the remedy within the stipulated time. The expression sufficient cause" employed in Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 and similar other statutes is elastic enough to e
