Gujarat High Court
Parsingh Maganbhai Bariya vs Ashokbhai Amarsing Koli on 11 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/308/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO.
308 of 2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 590 of 2025
=============================================
PARSINGH MAGANBHAI BARIYA
Versus
ASHOKBHAI AMARSING KOLI & ANR.
=============================================
Appearance:
MR. SABIR B SAIYYAD(6322) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. ALKESH N SHAH(3749) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
Date : 11/08/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard Mr. Khan, learned advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. Sabir Saiyyad, learned advocate for the applicant. Mr. Richa Shah, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of Mr. Shah, learned advocate for the respondent no.2- Insurance Company. Rule issued by this Court upon the respondent no.1 though reported to have been duly served, however has chosen not to appear and contest the present application. Noticing the limited prayers sought for, the present application is peremptorily taken up for hearing with the assistance of the learned advocates for the respective parties.
2. The present application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Page 1 of 5 Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Tue Aug 12 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 22:19:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/308/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/08/2025 undefined Act, 1988 praying for condonation of delay of 2128 days caused in preferring the appeal.
3. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant- original claimant, at the outset, has submitted that unfortunately the claim petition preferred by the present applicant under Section 163 A of the Act, 1988 has been dismissed on the ground that the applicant being rider of the vehicle has entered into the shoes of the owner and therefore, the claim petition is held not maintainable. He has further invited my attention to the recent order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Wakia Afrin (Minor) vs. M/s National Insurance Company, Neutral Citation 2025 INSC 919, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court after considering its earlier decisions in the case of Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd, reported in (2009) 13 SCC 710, Ramkhiladi v. United India Insurance Co. reported in (2020) 2 SCC 550 and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajni Devi reported in (2008) 5 SCC 736 has referred the issue to the Larger Bench. He has therefore, submitted that the issue of the maintainability of the claim petition under Section 163 A of the Act, 1988 is pending Page 2 of 5 Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Tue Aug 12 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 22:19:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/308/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/08/2025 undefined consideration before the Larger Bench. Having apprised this Court on the aforesaid issue involved, the learned advocate has further drawn my attention to the averments made in the application and has submitted that though the impugned judgment and award was pronounced on 3.10.2018, the applicant had immediately applied for certified copy, which was made available on 31.12.2018 and the applicant was expected to move in appeal by 03.03.2019. However, the applicant had been unable to pursue the remedy of appeal because of injuries sustained by him in the accident. It was further submitted that because of the disability sustained, the applicant was unable to effectively pursue the vocation and earned his livelihood. In absence of the same, the applicant was facing serious financial constraints to meet with the legal expenses as well. During the aforesaid period, the Covid pandemic had led to further hardships. He has therefore, offered to waive the interest for the interregnum period of delay, however has urged this Court to accept his case on merits by extending an opportunity of hearing. He has therefore, urged this Court to take liberal approach and to condone the delay.
Page 3 of 5 Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Tue Aug 12 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 22:19:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/308/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/08/2025 undefined
4. Learned advocate Ms. Shah appearing on behalf of respondent no.2- Insurance Company has vehemently objected to the aforesaid submissions. According to her, the explanation offered cannot be considered as sufficient cause which prevented the applicant for pursuing the appeal. She has therefore, urged not to entertain the present application and to dispose of the appeal as well.
5. Considering the aforesaid submissions of the learned advocates for the respective parties, in light of the averments made in the application which has been stated on oath, in absence of any contradiction being pointed out by learned advocate for the respondent no.2, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, considering the fact that the issue which arises for consideration in the proposed appeal is at large pending consideration in the reference raised by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and noticing the explanation offered, looking at the benevolent scheme of the Act, this Court is inclined to accept the aforesaid explanation offered to be sufficient cause which prevented the applicant for pursuing the remedy of appeal. Noticing the benevolent scheme of the Act and the fact that the claim petition itself has been Page 4 of 5 Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Tue Aug 12 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 22:19:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CA/308/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/08/2025 undefined dismissed, this Court is inclined to condone the delay caused in preferring the appeal. Hence, delay of 2128 days caused in preferring the appeal is hereby condoned on condition that the applicant - claimant shall not be entitled to interest of the aforesaid interregnum period of delay caused in preferring the appeal in case if the applicant is able to successfully established his case on merits. With these observations, present application stands allowed.
(NISHA M. THAKORE,J) RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH Page 5 of 5 Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Tue Aug 12 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 22:19:38 IST 2025