A counsel's negligence does not provide sufficient cause for delay in a legal proceeding; review petitions cannot be used to re-argue merits once the issue is conclusively settled.

JUDGMENT :

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

The application (CM No. 16912-CII of 2024) under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeks condonation of delay of 3847 days in filing Review Application No. RA-CR-120 of 2024

2. The review is directed against the order dated 11.02.2014 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in FAO No. 4511 of 2002(Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Rohtash & Ors.), whereby the appeal of the insurer was partly allowed.

3. In that appeal, while affirming the liability of the Insurance Company to satisfy the award in favour of the claimants, this Court had held that since the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing a valid and effective driving licence to drive the kind of offending vehicle, the insurer would have a right to recover the awarded amount from the owner and driver of the vehicle.

4. The accident in question occurred on 04.07.2000, resulting in the death of a 12-year-old girl, Sonia, a student of Class III. The offending vehicle, bearing registration No. HR-45-5406, was driven by Angrej Singh @ Chander Bhan(applicant herein), owned by Satpal Bhardwaj, and insured with Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

5. The claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the victim’s parents was allowed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal on 01.04.2002, awarding Rs.1,25,000/- along with interest, holding the driver, owner, and insurer jointly and severally liable.

6. While the claimants filed FAO No. 3561 of 2002 seeking enhancement (still pending), the insurer preferred FAO No. 4511 of 2002 seeking exoneration on the ground that the driver lacked a valid licence. The said appeal was disposed of on 11.02.2014, partly allowing the insurer’s appeal with right of recovery, as noted earlier.

7. The present review petitioner (driver) seeks recall of the order dated 11.02.2014, asserting that he possessed a valid driving licence and that he was unaware of the said order due to non-communication by his earlier counsel, Mr. Yogesh Chaudhary, Advocate, who has since passed away in May 2017. The applicant claims that he came to know of the order only upon receiving summons dated 28.05.2024 in FAO No. 3561 of 2002, and immediately thereafter filed the present review petition, accompanied by the application for condonation of delay.

8. The explanation offered is wholly unsatisfactory and devoid of substance. The delay of over 11 years (3847 days) is colossal and remains unexplained by any convincing reason. Mere allegation of non-communication by counsel cannot be a sufficient ground to invoke Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

9. As per the judicial record, the applicant-driver was duly represented in FAO No. 4511 of 2002 by Mr. Yogesh Chaudhary, Advocate, for whom Mr. G.S. Gopera, Advocate appeared on the date of hearing, i.e., 11.02.2014. The order of that date clearly records such appearance.

10. Once a litigant has engaged counsel, the acts and omissions of the counsel, unless amounting to fraud or misconduct, are binding upon the client. Negligence, inaction, or lack of diligence on the part of counsel is not a “sufficient cause” for condonation of inordinate delay.

11. The review petitioner has not produced any material to show that he exercised due diligence to ascertain the outcome of the case for more than a decade. The ground of counsel’s demise in 2017 is irrelevant since the order sought to be reviewed was passed in 2014, and the counsel’s death occurred three years later.

12. Even on merits, the contention that the petitioner possessed a valid driving licence was squarely dealt with by this Court in its order dated 11.02.2014. The issue stood concluded after examination of evidence and findi