United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Smt. Ramjhari Singh & Others
2017 Latest Caselaw 3708 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?AFR 
 
Court No. - 34
 

 
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1868 of 2002
 

 
Appellant :- United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
 
Respondent :- Smt. Ramjhari Singh & Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Ashok Kr. Srivastava,Saral Srivastava
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Jai Ram Singh,A.Singh,Ram Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

This appeal has been filed by the insurer against the award dated 31.05.2002 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Allahabad in Claim Petitioner No. 581 of 1999.

It is a death case. The solitary ground raised in the present appeal is while according to the claimants the accident involving the death of Madan Mohan Singh occurred on 23.09.1991, the claim petition was filed with a delay of almost 8 years. However no explanation whatsoever was furnished for inordinate delay of 8 years. Neither any disclosure was made as to the cause of delay in filing the claim petition nor did the claimants state anything in that regard during oral evidence.

On the other hand, the present appellant had filed its written statement and at the very outset, in paragraph 6 thereof opposed the claim petition by stating, the same was highly belated and had been filed upon collusion between the owner of the vehicle and the claimants.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits, despite such specific objection raised by the present appellant, the Tribunal failed to frame any issue whether the claim filed was wholly belated and therefore stale.

It is his submission that due to inordinate delay, the evidence that was necessary for the defence of the appellant was lost and thus, the valuable right of the insurer got impaired due to the conduct of the claimant-respondents in acting with inordinate delay of 8 years.

In support of his submission, learned counsel for the appellant has relied on a recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Purohit and Company Vs. Khatoonbee and Anr. reported in 2017 AIR (SC) 1612 wherein the Supreme Court considered the  similar objection  raised by the insurer in respect of claim filed with a delay of 28 years. The Supreme Court took note of the earlier law and subject and thereafter held as below:-

"13. We are satisfied, that the submission advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the appellant merits acceptance. The judgments on which the High Court had relied, and on which the respondents have emphasised, in our considered view, are not an impediment, to the acceptance of the submission canvassed on behalf of the appellant. We say so, because in Dhannalal's case (supra) the question of inordinate delay in approaching the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, was not considered.

In the second judgment in C.Padma's case (supra), it was considered. And in the C.Padma's case, the first conclusion drawn in paragraph 12 was "... if otherwise the claim is found genuine...". We are of the considered view, that a claim raised before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, can be considered to be genuine, so long as it is a live and surviving claim. We are satisfied in accepting the declared position of law, expressed in the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant. It is not as if, it can be open to all and sundry, to approach a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, to raise a claim for compensation, at any juncture, after the accident had taken place. The individual concerned, must approach the Tribunal within a reasonable time.

14. The question of reasonability would naturally depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. We are however, satisfied, that a delay of 28 years, even without reference to any other fact, cannot be considered as a prima facie reasonable period, for approaching the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The only justification indicated by the respondents, for initiating proceedings after a lapse of 28 years, emerges from paragraph 4, contained in the application for condonation of delay, filed by the claimants, before the Tribunal. Paragraph 4 aforementioned is extracted hereunder:

"4. That the Petitioners are poor person and they have no knowledge about the Law. Also the Respondent has not pay the single pie towards any compensation."

15. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the justification expressed at the behest of the respondents, for approaching the Tribunal, after a period of 28 years, we are of the view, that the explanation tendered, cannot be accepted. Undoubtedly, the claim (pertaining to an accident which had occurred on 02.02.1977), in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, was stale, and ought to have been treated as a dead claim, at the point of time, when the respondents approached the Tribunal by filing a claim petition, on 23.02.2005."

(emphasis supplied)

In the instant case there is no disclosure made by the claimants for the delayed claim petition. It appears, the claim lodged by the claimant-respondents is wholly stale and the evidence relied upon by the claimant was therefore that much more unreliable.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits, an FIR had been lodged in respect of the accident and the driver of the offending vehicle had also been charge-sheeted therefore, according to him there is no denial of the occurrence of the accident or the death of the deceased as a result thereof.

However, the documents so relied upon by learned counsel for the claimant-respondents do not establish involvement of the insured vehicle in the accident as claimed by them.

Again, it cannot be lost sight of the deceased was a constable in the Police Department and therefore, there does not exist any presumption as to lack of awareness with the claimants as to their rights for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. Then again, the owner of the vehicle had appeared in these proceedings to file his written statement and denied the occurrence of the accident with his vehicle.

In entirety of the facts and circumstances, it does appear that the claim case was wholly stale. Though there is no limitation prescribed for filing the claim petition, yet, as has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Purohit and Company Vs. Khatoonbee and Anr. (supra) a stale claim such as this cannot be allowed to be raised belatedly, that too, as of right without giving even a semblance of an explanation as to delay of eight years.

It is also not right proper on the part of the Tribunal to have ignored the objection raised by the insurer in the written statement as to the claim being stale and to have proceeded merely on the evidence that was led by the claimants.

Delay may be overlooked if the other facts and circumstances of the case may justify such conclusion, however in the facts of the present case it appears, the award has been passed on a stale claim that too without examining the cause of delay.

The appeal therefore deserves to be allowed. It is noted, under the interim order passed by this Court half of the decretal amount has already been deposited by the appellant and of that half has been released in favour of the claimant-respondents. Balance amount is lying deposited with the Tribunal.

Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed. The award of the Tribunal dated 31.05.2002 is set aside. However, the amount already released in favour of the claimant-respondents shall not be recovered in pursuance of this order. The balance amount lying with the Tribunal shall be returned to the appellant-insurer together with any interest that may have accrued thereon.

In view of the above, the present appeal is allowed and the cross objection filed by the claimant-respondents is rejected. No order as to costs.

Order Date :- 28.8.2017

A. Singh