Back
RAJNISH KUMAR
Supreme Transport Company, Lucknow Thru. Proprietor, Smt. Shayaka Khan – Appellant
Versus
Suman Devi – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rajnish Kumar, J.
(Application No.IA/1/2024)
1. Heard Shri Aftab Zaki Khan, learned counsel for the appellant.
2. This highly belated F.A.F.O. under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 01.01.2014 passed in claim petition no.276 of 2012 (Suman Devi Vs. M/S Supreme Transport Company and Another) under Section- 165, 166 and Section 140 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/ District Judge, Lucknow alongwith an application for condonation of delay in filing appeal.
3. The office has reported a delay of 3107 days in filing the appeal. The appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 may be preferred within ninety days from the date of award. Second proviso to Section 173 provides that the High Court may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of ninety days, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal in time. Therefore, this Court has to see as to whether the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within time or not.
4. The ground for condonation of delay has been given in paragraph nos
The court held that mere excuses do not constitute sufficient cause for condoning a significant delay in filing an appeal, emphasizing the need for diligence in pursuing legal remedies.
Point of law: claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. T....
Section 173 provides that, any person aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal may approach the High Court within ninety days. However, the second proviso states that the High Court “may” still ....
Point of Law : LPA is 916 days and as such the consideration to condone can be made only if there is reasonable explanation and the condonation cannot be merely because the appellant is public body. ....
The court ruled that mere negligence and inaction do not constitute sufficient cause for condoning a significant delay in filing an appeal.
Litigants must exercise due diligence in legal proceedings; mere negligence of counsel does not justify condoning delays in filing appeals under the Limitation Act.
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
