Back
2017 Supreme(P&H) 2944
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Avneesh Jhingan
FAO No. 1352 of 2017
Sonu & Ors.
v.
Makhan Singh & Ors.
{Decided on 30/11/2017}
Mr. Arun Sharma, Advocate, for Mr. T.K. Joshi, Advocate, for respondent No.3 – Insurance Company.
Condonation of Delay--Delay cannot be condoned on the ground that the appellant will loose interest for the period of delay
Headnote:
(A) Limitation Act, 1963, S.5--Condonation of Delay--There cannot be a conditional condonation of delay--Delay cannot be condoned on the ground that the appellant will loose interest for the period of delay. (Para 5)
(B) Limitation Act, 1963, S.5--Accident--Condonation of Delay--Delay of 601 days, in filing appeal, which by no stretch of imagination can be said to be of a short period--Thus, liberal approach in condonation of delay cannot be taken to extent that where sufficient explanation is not coming forth--Delay not condoned--Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166. (Para 13 & 14)
(C) Limitation Act, 1963, S.5--Condonation of Delay--Mistake of Counsel--No specific explanation coming forth and blame was simply put on previous counsel, but no details of counsel were given despite specific instructions by court--Explanation rendered by appellants not satisfactory--Withholding of details of counsel further raises a doubt about explanation--Hence, application for condonation of delay dismissed. (Para 22 & 23)
JUDGMENT
Mr. Avneesh Jhingan, J.:- This appeal has been filed against the award dated 30.10.2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kaithal (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) for enhancement of the compensation awarded under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act’).
2. The present appeal has arisen out of the accident that occurred on 16.12.2012 between TATA ACE bearing registration No. CH-01TA-3140 and Canter bearing registration No. HR-64-5440, in which Pala Ram lost his life.
3. The appeal is accompanied by an application (CM No. 4303- CII of 2017) under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay
4. At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the delay in filing the appeal be condoned, subject to the condition that interest for the period of delay be not paid to the claimants.
5. The aforesaid submission cannot be accepted, as . Reliance is placed upon a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Basawaraj and another Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, [2013(5) Law Herald (SC) 4025 : 2013(3) Land L.R. 6 (SC)] : 2013 (14) SCC 81, wherein it has been held that delay cannot be condoned on the ground that the appellant will loose interest for the period of delay. The Hon’ble Apex Court further did not approve such kind of judgments where the delay was condoned subject to the conditions that the appellants would not be entitled to interest. The relevant observations are :
“15. The law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as to what was the “sufficient cause” which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bona fide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by this court in regard to the condonation of delay. In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court on time condoning the delay without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the legislature.”
6. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the appellants contended that the delay has occurred because the appellants are villagers and are not aware of the limitation to file the appeal. They collected the papers from the counsel of the lower court and same were handed over to a High Court lawyer through counsel of the lower court in the month of January, 2015, i.e. within the limitation to file the appeal. However, when in September, 2016, an enquiry was made by the appellants, they came to know that no appeal has been filed by the said counsel. When it was asked as to why the appeal was not filed, he informed that full payment of counsel fee was not made and only part payment was made, therefore, the appeal was not filed. Thereafter, the documents were collected and the present appeal was filed. In this way, the delay of 601 days occurred.
7. From a perusal of the application for condonation of delay, the contradiction in the stand of the appellants is evident. Firstly, it is stated that they are not aware of the limitation to file the appeal, in the same breath, it is stated that the documents were handed over to the counsel in January, 2015, i.e. within the period of limitation, to file appeal.
8. No detail of the counsel has been given to whom the documents were handed over. Even affidavit of the counsel in support of the application has not been filed. Even the name etc. of the counsel has not been mentioned in the applic
