Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
AVNEESH JHINGAN, J.
Kashmir Kaur and another - Appellants
Versus
Paramjit Singh and others - Respondents
C.M. No. 9871-CII of 2015 in/and F.A.O. No. 3306 of 2015 (O&M)
Decided On : 13-10-2017
Delay Condonation - Motor Accidents Claims - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 166 - Indian Limitation Act, 1963, Section 5 - [Section 166, Indian Limitation Act, 1963, Section 5] - The court discussed the parameters for condoning the delay, emphasizing a liberal approach for short delays and a stricter approach for substantial delays. It cited relevant case law to support its decision and highlighted the importance of providing a sufficient cause for delay. The court ultimately dismissed the appeal as time-barred due to the lack of a reasonable explanation for the delay.
Fact of the Case:
The appeal was filed against an award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, with a delay of 689 days. The applicants, parents who lost their son in a motor vehicular accident, sought condonation of the delay, citing shock from their son's untimely death as the reason for the delay.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the explanations provided for the delay, including the shock from the son's death and the advice received from the trial Court counsel, were not sufficient to warrant condonation of the delay. It emphasized the importance of providing a reasonable explanation for the delay and ultimately dismissed the appeal as time-barred.
Issues: The main issue was whether the delay in filing the appeal could be condoned based on the reasons provided by the applicants.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that while a liberal approach should be adopted for condoning delay, a sufficient cause for the delay must be provided. It emphasized the need for a reasonable explanation and dismissed the appeal due to the lack of such an explanation.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal as time-barred due to the absence of a reasonable explanation for the delay.
Avneesh Jhingan, J.
The present appeal has been filed against the award dated 4.2.2013 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar (for short 'the Tribunal').
2. The present appeal has been filed along with civil application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of 689 days delay in filing the appeal.
3. The brief facts relevant for the decision of the present application are:
The applicants are the unfortunate parents who lost their young son aged 25 years in a motor vehicular accident that occurred on 21.2.2010.
4. On the death of the son, in 2010, the claim petition was moved under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') in 2010 itself.
5. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,66,500/- as compensation.
6. Aggrieved of the said award, the present appeal has been filed but with delay of 689 days. The explanation rendered in the application is that the appellants were under shock because of untimely death of their son. Secondly, it has been stated that on 7.4.2015 when they discussed the matter with their trial Court counsel, he advised that if they are dissatisfied with the award, they can file appeal before the Hon'ble High Court. Thereafter the appeal was filed on 9.4.2015.
7. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 has opposed the condonation of delay stating that the delay is in-ordinate and no sufficient cause has been given for condoning the delay.
8. The explanation put forth that the applicants were under shock is an acceptable explanation. There cannot be any doubt that the parents who lost their young son would be under shock and they will remain under shock for rest of their life. But the fact remains that inspite of the shock the claim petition was filed in the same very year in which the accident occurred. The claim petition was filed within two months of the accident. The Tribunal awarded the compensation vide award dated 4.2.2013. There was a period of almost three years between the death and passing of the award. Neither any medical evidence nor any pleading that the applicants were under some sort of depression etc, has been produced. At this stage, the parents being under the shock, cannot be taken a plea for not filing the appeal in time.
9. The second explanation is that when in April 2015, the applicants discussed the matter with the trial Court counsel and they were told that if they are dis-satisfied, they can file appeal before the High Court. In this regard also, no explanation is coming forward that why the matter was not discussed from February 2013 to April 2015. Nothing has been stated that what prompted the discussion in April 2015, after a period of two years of passing of the award.
10. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 has pointed out that the certified copy of the award was received on 28.2.2013.
11. Learned counsel for the applicants was specifically asked during the course of hearing that as to when they received the awarded amount. Counsel was not in a position to give any satisfactory answer. If they had received the amount in 2013 or 2014, that itself will show that there was meeting between the applicants and the counsel.
12. Hon'ble Apex Court has held that 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 av
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
