Back
2018 Supreme(P&H) 4486
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Lisa Gill, J.
Jagdish - Appellant
Versus
Smt. Saresh - Respondent
F. A. O. No. 4734 of 2018(O&M)
Decided On : 02-08-2018
Mr.Bhisham Kumar Majoka, Advocate, for the Appellant
Lack of due diligence and a casual approach by the appellant did not justify condonation of the delay in filing the appeal.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act - Motor Accident Claims - Sections 166/140 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which deal with the filing of claims for compensation in case of motor vehicle accidents. The court also referred to the proviso to section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which pertains to the compliance with conditions for filing appeals. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of these provisions and their application to the facts of the case.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant challenged an award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, seeking compensation for the death of an individual in a motor vehicle accident. The appellant's appeal was barred by limitation due to a delay of 1140 days in filing the appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay in filing the appeal was not intentional or deliberate, but the appellant failed to demonstrate due diligence. The court dismissed the applications seeking condonation of delay and exemption from complying with the statutory condition, consequently dismissing the main appeal.
Issues: The issues involved the delay in filing the appeal, the appellant's justification for the delay, and the exemption from complying with statutory conditions under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that lack of due diligence and a casual approach by the appellant did not justify condonation of the delay. The court also found no ground or justification for exempting the appellant from complying with statutory conditions.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the applications seeking condonation of delay and exemption from complying with statutory conditions, consequently dismissing the main appeal with no order as to costs.
ORDER
Lisa Gill, J. - This appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging award dated 09.03.2015 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Palwal, in a petition under Sections 166/140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, filed by the respondent-claimants seeking compensation on account of death of one Kailash in a motor vehicle accident which took place on 13.11.2013.
2. The appellant is the owner of the offending vehicle in question. Petition under sections 166, 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as mentioned above was filed by the respondent-claimants. Learned tribunal held that Kailash (deceased) lost his life in the motor vehicle accident which took place on 13.11.2013 due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver respondent-Hari Chand. Claimants were the widow, four minor children and father of the deceased. Sum of Rs. 8,74,000/- was awarded as compensation to the claimants, the details of which are as under:-
| 1. | Loss of dependency (Rs. 58,500/- x 14) | Rs. 8,19,000 |
| 2. | Funeral and last rites etc. expenses | Rs. 25,000/- |
| 3. | Loss of Estate | Rs. 10,000/- |
| 4. | Loss of love and Affection | Rs. 10,000/- |
| 5. | Loss of consortium to wife (petitioner no. 1) | Rs. 10,000 |
|
| Total | Rs. 8,74,000/- |
3. The present vehicle was not insured. Thus, the appellant along with respondent-driver was held liable jointly and severally.
4. Aggrieved therefrom, the present appeal has been filed.
5. The present appeal is barred by limitation there being a delay of one thousand one hundred and forty (1140) days in filing of this appeal.
6. It is submitted that the delay is not intentional or deliberate. The applicant-appellant was not informed by the counsel representing him before the learned tribunal regarding passing of the impugned award and it is only in the month of April 2018, he came to know about the passing of the impugned award. The applicant-appellant, it is further submitted is a poor illiterate person and should not be made to suffer due to no fault on his part.
7. Another application for exemption from depositing the statutory amount, has been filed.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant-appellant and have carefully gone through the case file.
9. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant has tried to raise arguments on merits of the case. I do not find any ground whatsoever to condone the colossal delay of 1140 days in filing of this appeal. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case H.Dohil Constructions Co. (P) Ltd. vs. Nahar Exports Ltd. And another 2015 (1) SCC (Civil) 646 while referring to its earlier decision in Esha Bhattacharjee vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy, 2013(4) R.C.R (Civil) 785 , quoted the following guidelines:-
"iv) No presumption can be attached to deliberate causation of delay but, gross negligence on the part of the counsel or litigant is to be taken note of.
v) Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact.
Viii) There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for to the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That apart, the first one warrants strict approach whereas the second calls for a liberal delineation.
ix) The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go by in the name of liberal approach.
x) If the explanation offered is concocted or the grounds urged in the application are fanciful, the courts should be vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily to face
