Condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act requires a showing of 'sufficient cause' and due diligence; gross, unexplained delays cannot be condoned on sympathetic grounds, even in beneficial legislation like the Motor Vehicles Act.

COMMON JUDGMENT

This Interlocutory Application is filed by the appellants under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of a delay of 1469 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.39 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 husband and children of late Radharam Bal Laxmi who died in a motor vehicle accident on 04.12.2013, filed a claim petition which was partly allowed by Award dated 09.11.2015, granting compensation of Rs.4,20,360/- with interest at 6% per annum. Dissatisfied with the quantum, they seek enhancement by way of the present appeal. The certified copy of the Award was made ready on 09.11.2015, and the appellants were represented by counsel and aware of the outcome. The statutory period of 90 days for filing an appeal expired in February 2016, but the present appeal was instituted only in April 2021, resulting in a delay of 1469 days.

In support of the application for condonation, the appellants state that they were initially informed that they would be notified upon deposit of the compensation and were later advised that an appeal for enhancement was required. They contend that no appeal was filed due to a mistake, that the counsel’s file was missing and he had shifted residence, and that family difficulties, including bereavement, ailments, and the children’s education, prevented timely action. It is claimed that only in March 2021, after the COVID-19 lockdown, they approached their counsel, traced the file, and filed the appeal.

Submissions of the parties

Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the delay was neither wilful nor deliberate, but due to bona fide circumstances. It was submitted that the appellants, being rustic villagers, were entirely dependent on their counsel and believed that necessary steps for enhancement had been taken. Invoking the beneficial nature of the Motor Vehicles Act, a liberal approach under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was sought.

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2–Insurance Company opposed the application, submitting that the delay of 1469 days is unexplained. It was argued that the appellants remained inactive for years and that the reasons cited, such as missing file and shifting of counsel’s residence, are vague and insufficient. It was contended that Condonation of such delay, would defeat the object of the law of limitation.

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.39 of 2014. The appeal is presented with a delay of 1469 days, which is beyond the prescribed period of limitation. It is trite that the law of limitation is founded on sound public policy, intended to ensure certainty and finality in litigation. Though the expression ‘sufficient cause’ under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is to receive a liberal construction, particularly in matters arising under the Motor Vehicles Act, such liberality cannot be extended to condone gross, unexplained delay. The applicant must demonstrate bona fide reasons and due diligence, and the explanation must inspire confidence.

In the present case, the delay spans more than four years beyond the prescribed period. The explanation offered by the appellants is general and unsupported by any documentary material. The plea that they w