SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.

CM-12245-CII-2018

1. This is an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condoning the delay of 2208 days in filing the appeal.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant/claimant submitted that the delay occurred unintentionally and due to bona fide reasons. It was further contended that the claimant should not be deprived of the opportunity to pursue the matter on merits merely on account of procedural delay. He furthermore, prays that he will not ask for interest for delayed period. Therefore, it was prayed that the present application be allowed in the interest of justice.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-applicant/respondents opposed the application and argued that the delay of 2208 days is inordinate and has not been satisfactorily explained. It was contended that the claimant ought to have remained vigilant regarding his legal rights and should have preferred the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation.

4. Accordingly, prayer was made for dismissal of the present application.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record as well as the contents of the application.

6. This Court is of the considered view that the claimant/appellant should not be denied the right to seek adjudication of his claim merely on technical grounds, particularly when the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial piece of legislation enacted for the welfare of claimants. The approach of the Court in such matters should be liberal so as to advance substantial justice.

7. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the present application for condonation of delay is allowed subject to that applicant will not be entitled to interest on delayed period.

8. The delay of 2042 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

****

FAO-3401-2018

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 08.11.2011 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short ‘1988 Act’), by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala (in short ‘the Tribunal’) for enhancement of compensation, granted to the appellants/claimants to the tune of Rs.18,38,113/- along with interest @7.5% per annum on account of injuries sustained by the appellant/claimant – Jaswinder Kumar in a motor vehicular accident, occurred on 10.11.2009.

2. As sole issue for determination in the present appeal is confined to quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, a detailed narration of the facts of the case is not required to be reproduced and is skipped herein for the sake of brevity.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES

3. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant contends that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed and the compensation awarded to the appellant/claimant be enhanced, as per latest law.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 contends that the learned Tribunal erred in holding that the accident occurred solely due to the negligent driving of driver of the offending vehicle. He further argues that the Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the testimony of driver. Furthermore he vehemently argues on the lines of the award and contends that amount of compensation as assessed by learned Tribunal is on the higher side. He further points out that separate appeal bearing No.FAO-580-2012 titled as “PRTC Vs. Mamta Rani and Ors.” is filed by respondent No.1 on the aforesaid grounds. He, therefore, prays that the present appeal filed by the claimants be dismissed.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of this case with their able assistance.

SETTLED LAW ON COMPENSATION

6. Hon’ble Supreme Court has settled the law regarding grant of compensation with respect to the disability. The Apex Court in