IMPORTANT POINT
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.

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.3, 4 and 5, which are extracted here-in-below:-

"3. That, in this case during pendency of claim petition after filing the objection against the claim petition counsel of appellant has never informed the appellant about the status of the claim petition.

4. That, One Sri. Sujaudin was doing pairvi from the side of appellant and he expired 4 years ago.

5. That, the appellant was not aware about the Judgement and award dated 01-01-2014 and first time he came to know about the judgement when recovery notice has been issued on 22-07-2024 and served upon him on 30-07-2024. Copy of recovery letter and notice are being annexed as annexure no.1 to this affidavit."

5. Since the ground was not sufficient for such a long delay, therefore, the appellant after arguing at some length had prayed for and was granted time on the last date for filing better affidavit in support of the application for condonation of delay. The appellant has filed a supplementary affidavit in support of application for condonation of delay. The supplementary affidavit indicates further grounds in paragraph nos.3 and 4, which are extracted here-in-below:-

"3. That, one Shujauddin, who was doing pairavi on behalf of the appellant before the M.A.C.T expired on 21.07.2020 but his family member could not obtain the Death Certificate from Nagar Nigam as such it was not necessary for them.

4. That, it is also pertinent to mention here that Appellant is a Pardanashin Lady and Husband of the Appellant namely Mohammad. Laiq Khan has also expired during Covid-19 on 20.05.2021, as such appellant was in Trauma, therefore delay has been caused."

6. In view of above, it is apparent that no ground for condonation of such a long period has been given. Only pleas have been taken that the counsel had never informed about status of claim petition and one Shri Sujauddin was doing pairvi from the side of the appellant and he died four years ago. Who was Sujauddin and why he was doing Pairvi on behalf of the appellant, when the case was contested by the appellant before the tribunal by filing written statement and the relevant documents on record and husband of appellant was alive, have not been disclosed? Even otherwise, as per own admission of the appellant, the said Sujauddin had died on 21.07.2020 i.e. after more than six years of passing of the impugned judgment and award and since then also more than four years have passed. Therefore firstly it has not been disclosed as to who was Sujauddin and why he was doing Pairvi. Even if any such person was doing Pairvi, then the plea that the counsel had not informed about claim petition to the appellant is not tenable. Secondly, if any such person was doing Pairvi, this Court is unable to comprehend that he would not have told to the appellant about the status of clai