The Tripura High Court condoned the delay in an appeal filed under Motor Vehicles Act and held that the prescribed limitation should not be construed in a manner that the substantive rights of the parties as compared to commercial claims under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, or Commercial Courts Act, 2015 are defeated.

Brief Facts:

The petitioner filed an appeal against the award passed by the trial court whereby the respondent was directed to pay a certain amount to the appellant along with an interest of 6% and gave the National Insurance Company to recover the awarded amount of compensation from the respondent.

Contentions of the Applicant:

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the delay of 371 days has occasioned by the reason that a requisition for obtaining a certified copy of the judgment was applied for after obtaining legal advice from the learned counsel by the claimant and it was only after due consideration that there are good grounds for the claimant to succeed the present appeal that has been filed and the delay was not intentional. The counsel further relied upon the judgment in Brahampal Alias Sammay and another versus National Insurance Company which held that the act t is a beneficial legislation intended to protect the rights of victims in road accidents and being a self-contained code in itself, the time limit for preferring an appeal should not be construed in a strict manner as compared to commercial claims under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

Contentions of the Respondent:

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent contended that the appellant had failed to explain whether there was any sufficient cause that prevented him from applying for a certified copy and thereafter preferring the appeal within the period of limitation.

Observations of the Court

The court observed that the appellant first approached his counsel to obtain advice on this issue and only after obtaining his advice applied for obtaining the certified copy of the impugned award and certain more papers were collected on the advice of the learned counsel representing him to form a proper opinion as to whether there are good grounds to prefer an appeal against the impugned award thereafter the appellant fell ill and was bedridden and thus the chronology of the explanations do not convey that there delay was on account of negligence or intentional on the part of the applicant and the delay could be attributed to lack of legal literacy on the part of the applicant regarding his claims and rights against an award of this nature.

The court referred to the judgment in Brahampal Alias Sammay and another versus National Insurance Company to state that the prescribed limitation should not be construed in a manner that the substantive rights of the parties as compared to commercial claims under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, or Commercial Courts Act, 2015 are defeated.

The decision of the Court:

The court disposed of the appeal and condoned the delay in preferring the appeal in the interest of Justice.  

Case Title: Tapan Sutradhar vs Dipankar Sarkar and ors.

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh

Case No.: MAC App. No.36 of 2023

Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. Raju Datta

Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. S. Noatia and Mr. E. Darlong

Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com

Picture Source :

 
kritika