Condonation of gross, unexplained delay cannot be granted merely on sympathetic grounds or the beneficial nature of the legislation if 'sufficient cause' and due diligence are not established.

COMMON JUDGMENT

This Interlocutory Application is filed by the appellants under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of a delay of 1837 days in preferring the accompanying Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (MACMA). The appeal is directed against the Award dated 09.11.2015 passed in M.V.O.P.No.40 of 2014 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Siddipet (for short ‘the Tribunal’). Since the maintainability of the appeal is dependent upon the condonation of the delay, this application is taken up for consideration at the threshold.

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.2 and perused the record.

The appellants, being the parents of late Daripally Swamy who died in a motor vehicle accident on 04.12.2013, instituted M.V.O.P.No.40 of 2014 before the Tribunal seeking compensation. By Award dated 09.11.2015, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and granted a sum of Rs.3,37,600/- with interest at 6% per annum to the 1st appellant–mother, while no compensation was awarded to the 2nd appellant–father. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation and the denial of compensation to the father, the appellants seek enhancement by way of the present appeal.

The certified copy of the Award was made ready on 09.11.2015 and the statutory period of limitation of 90 days expired in February 2016. However, the appeal was filed only in April 2021, resulting in a delay of 1837 days. In support of the application for condonation, the 1st appellant states that he had instructed their counsel to file an appeal and were under the bona fide impression that it had been filed; that the 2nd appellant was unwell after the demise of their son; and that they came to know only on 31.03.2021 that no appeal had been preferred, whereupon immediate steps were taken.

It is in this backdrop that the request for condonation of delay, and consequently the maintainability of the appeal, arises for consideration.

Submissions of the parties

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the delay was neither wilful nor deliberate but occasioned by bona fide circumstances. It was contended that the appellants, being rustic and illiterate villagers, were entirely dependent upon their counsel and were under the bona fide impression that an appeal had been filed soon after the Award dated 09.11.2015 in M.V.O.P.No.40 of 2014. It was further urged that the 2nd appellant was unwell after the death of their son and that the 1st appellant was attending to him, which prevented them from pursuing the matter. Emphasizing that the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation, learned counsel prayed for a liberal approach under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and submitted that the appellants are willing to forgo interest for the delayed period.

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2–Insurance Company opposed the application, contending that the delay of 1837 days is gross and unexplained. It was argued that the appellants remained inactive for nearly five years beyond the limitation period and that the explanation offered is vague and unsupported by any material. The plea of bona fide belief and the alleged illness of the 2nd appellant were stated to be unsubstantiated and insufficient to justify such extraordinary delay. It was therefore submitted that no sufficient cause has been shown to warrant condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

I have taken note of the respective submissions urged.

Consideration by this Court

This Court has given anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material placed on record, including the Award dated 09.11.2015 passed in M.V.O.P. No.40 of 2014. The appeal is presented with a delay of 1837 days, i.e., nearly five years beyond the prescribed period of limitation. It is trite that the law of limitation is founded on sound publ