MAC.APP. 118/2022 Page 1 of 18

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

MAC.APP. 118/2022, CM APPL. 18370/2022 & CM APPL.

18371/2022

Reserved on

: 13/04/2022

Date of Decision : 09/05/2022

IN THE MATTER OF:

RAM KUMAR

..... Appellant

Through:

Mr. Ayush Gupta & Mr. Ajay

Sharma, Advocates.

Versus

ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ORS. ..... Respondents

Through:

Ms. Preeti Kumar, Advocate for

respondent No.1.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

JUDGMENT

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J.

CM APPL. 18372/2022 (Delay)

1. The present application has been filed under Section 5 of the

Limitation Act on behalf of the appellant seeking condonation of delay of

3738 days in filing the appeal.

2. By way of the present appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter, referred to as the ‘MV Act’) read with

Order 43 CPC, the appellant, who is the owner of the offending vehicle,

has sought the following reliefs:-

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/001863

MAC.APP. 118/2022 Page 2 of 18

Insurance Company.”

3. Brief facts of the case, as noted by the Tribunal in the impugned

order, are as follows:-

“2.

Trauma Center where the post mortem was conducted.”

4. A perusal of the case records would show that the appellant was

proceeded ex-parte and while allowing the claim petition, the Tribunal

passed the impugned Award on 07.09.2011, thereby granting recovery

rights to respondent No.1/Insurance Company against him.

5. After more than 5 years of the date of passing of the Award, on

15.05.2017, the appellant preferred an application under Order 9 Rule 13

CPC seeking setting aside of the Award, claiming that he was not aware

of the proceedings and was proceeded ex-parte. In the said application, it

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/001863

MAC.APP. 118/2022 Page 3 of 18

was further claimed that the appellant was assured on behalf of

respondent No.1/Insurance Company that the offending vehicle was

insured on the date of the accident, and as such, the liability fell on the

Company and the appellant need not appear in the matter.

6. During the course of hearing in the present case, learned counsel

for the appellant submitted that the appellant came to know of the

impugned Award only in April 2017, when some officials visited his

house. Pursuant to the same, the appellant engaged a Counsel, who

inspected the file from record room on 01.05.2017, and thereafter, the

appellant came to know that respondent No.1/Insurance Company had

initiated execution proceedings against him. Accordingly, the appellant

preferred an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC seeking setting aside

of the Award.

It was further submitted that during the pendency of the

proceedings before the Tribunal, the appellant was falsely assured on

behalf of respondent No.1/Insurance Company that he need not come in

the further proceedings, as the liability was of the Company. Learned

counsel contended that believing such misrepresentation and owing to

the fact that he was totally handicapped and bedridden for more than 5

years, the appellant did not appear before the Tribunal. It was stressed

that by inspection and enquiry only, the appellant came to know about

the impugned Award and his non-appearance in the claim proceedings

was unintentional, however, the same was not appreciated by the

Tribunal while passing the impugned order.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and also gone

through the material placed on the record.

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/001863

MAC.APP. 118/2