B.M.Foods Products Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. vs Smt. Dhandei And Ors.
2025 Latest Caselaw 7200 ALL

Allahabad High Court

B.M.Foods Products Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. vs Smt. Dhandei And Ors. on 23 May, 2025

Author: Abdul Moin

Bench: Abdul Moin

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:30931
 
Court No. - 5
 

 
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 950 of 2011
 

 
Appellant :- B.M.Foods Products Pvt. Ltd. And Ors.
 
Respondent :- Smt. Dhandei And Ors.
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Deepak Kumar Agarwal,Deepak Kumar Agarwal
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Himanshu K. Srivastava,Ajai Kumar Jaiswal,Ashish Kumar Srivastava
 

 
Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.
 

1. Heard Shri Deepak Kumar Agarwal, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Shri Ashish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.

2. Despite notice having been served on the respondents No.1 & 2 and vakalatnama having been filed on their behalf by Shri Himanshu K. Srivastava and Shri Ajai Kumar Jaiswal and their names being indicated in the cause list from the side of respondent, nobody has appeared on behalf of respondents No.1 & 2.

3. Accordingly, considering the previous order of this Court dated 16.06.2025 that the matter shall not be adjourned and that the matter is of the year 2011, the Court proceeds to hear and decide the matter with the assistance of learned counsels who are present before this Court.

4. Under challenge is the award dated 21.05.2011 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bahraich in M.A.C.P. No. 41/17/2003 In Re: Smt. Dhandei vs. B.M. Foods Products Pvt. Limited & Others, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.4,12,500/- in favour of the claimant along with interest. The respondents No.1, 2 & 3 (appellants No.1, 2 & 3 herein), who are the B.M. Foods Products Pvt. Ltd. and the two partners of the said firm, have been held liable to pay the aforesaid amount.

5. The short controversy as involved in the instant appeal is that the accident which led the claim application to be filed before the learned Tribunal is said to have occurred on 23.06.1991. The claim application has been filed on 05.03.2003.

6. The argument of Shri Deepak Kumar Agarwal, learned counsel for the appellants, i.e. the company and its partners who have been directed to pay the awarded amount, is that keeping in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/S Purohit and Company vs. Khatoon Bee and Another 2017 (3) T.A.C. 340 (S.C.), even though no limitation is prescribed now under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1988") more particularly Section 166 of the Act, 1988 yet at the time of the accident, a limitation of six months was provided for filing of the claim application, which could be condoned but for a period not more than 12 months.

7. Shri Agarwal argues that the aforesaid limitation has been omitted by the Notification dated 14.11.1994, whereby now no limitation is provided under the Act, 1988 for filing of a claim application.

8. It is argued that as the accident relates to the year 1991 consequently, the claimant should have filed the application within the limitation prescribed i.e. within six months of the accident having occurred, considering the limitation which was therein prevailing.

9. Further placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Khatoon Bee (supra), the contention is that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after considering the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and the Act, 1988, which both provided a limitation of six months, but subsequent to 14.11.1994 no limitation has been provided, has held that the claim application should be filed within "reasonable period". It has also been held that what would be the reasonable period would depend on the facts and circumstances of the each case.

10. Shri Agarwal fairly states that although an objection pertaining to limitation was never raised before the learned Tribunal and even the claim application had been filed without explaining the delay in filing the application, after a period of almost 12 years of the alleged accident having occurred, yet it was the duty of the learned Tribunal to have considered this aspect of the matter more particularly when the owner of the vehicle had specifically averred in the statement before the learned Tribunal that they were not having the papers pertaining to the insurance for the relevant years i.e. 1991, which had been reiterated by them in the evidence and had also been reiterated in paragraph 11 of the affidavit that had been filed by the partner of the firm namely Shri Madhusudan which is on record as paper No. A173/1.

11. The learned Tribunal, in the absence of any insurance policy having been produced by the owner of the vehicle to indicate that the vehicle was insured, has consequently saddled the owners of the vehicle i.e. the company and its partners with the liability of making the payment of the awarded amount to the claimant and, as such, prejudice has been caused to the appellants on account of the claim application having been filed after a period of almost 12 years from the date of the accident.

12. On the other hand, Shri Ashish Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 has supported the order passed by the learned Tribunal.

13. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and have perused the record.

14. From a perusal of the record, it emerges that for an accident which is said to have occurred on 23.06.1991 involving the vehicle owned by the appellants i.e. the company and its partners, a claim application has been filed before the learned Tribunal on 05.03.2003. The claim application was not accompanied by any application either for condonation of delay or any averment to the effect as to why the said claim application was being filed after a period of almost 12 years of the alleged incident.

15. Even though, no objection was raised by the appellants herein to the claim application being filed after a period of almost 12 years yet in the evidence that had been led by the partner of the firm and in his statement, which was recorded before the learned Tribunal, it was categorically averred that on account of substantial delay, the papers pertaining to the insurance of the vehicle are not traceable and consequently, the appellants / owners of the vehicle could not produce the insurance policy of the aforesaid vehicle.

16. The learned Tribunal, considering that no documents pertaining to the insurance of the said vehicle were produced, was of the view that the claimants are entitled for the award and the amount would be paid by the owners of the vehicle in the absence of any valid insurance.

17. From a perusal of the aforesaid, it is thus apparent that the owners of the vehicle were prejudiced on account of not having the policy documents pertaining to the vehicle from which an accident had occurred in the year 1991 i.e. the documents of the vehicle were required to be produced by them after a period of 12 years from the date of the alleged incident.

18. Despite the owners having indicated the same, both in the evidence and in the statement before the learned Tribunal, the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate the aforesaid and has proceeded on the ground that the documents pertaining to the insurance were not produced by the owners and has, thus, saddled the owner with the liability to satisfy the award.

19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Khatoon Bee (supra), after considering the limitation as were prescribed under the provisions of the Act, 1939, the Act, 1988 and the limitation having been omitted w.e.f. 14.11.1994, was of the view that even if no limitation was prescribed under the provisions of the Act, 1988, a claim application should be filed within a reasonable period.

20. The case in hand of the claimants stands on a worse footing inasmuch as, at the time of the accident i.e. 23.06.1991 a limitation of six months was prescribed under the provisions of the Act, 1988 which could be condoned by a period of 12 months upon an application being moved subject to the satisfaction of the learned Tribunal. However, no claim application was filed during the aforesaid period rather the claim application has only been filed in March 2003 i.e. after a substantial delay of 12 years and that too without explaining the reasons as to why the claim application is being filed belatedly.

21. The prejudice as caused to the owners of the said vehicle has already been summed up above.

22. Keeping in view of the aforesaid discussion, it is thus apparent that the learned Tribunal has not proceeded to decide the claim application in accordance with law, more particularly, considering the statement of the owners of the vehicle pertaining to them not having the policy document on account of the long lapse of time from the date of accident in filing the claim application and the claimants having failed to indicate any reason for filing the claim application after almost 12 years of the alleged accident.

23. At the same time, the Court may not lose sight of the fact that before the learned Tribunal was an illiterate mother who had filed the claim application praying for being awarded some amount for the death of her son. Nothing restrained the respondents from raising a specific objection pertaining to the limitation and in case the same would have been raised before the learned Tribunal at that stretch of time, perhaps the claimant would have addressed the same before the learned Tribunal.

24. Thus, this Court would have to balance the aforesaid facts and circumstances between the parties.

25. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal dated 21.05.2011 is set aside. Further considering that the total awarded amount was directed to be deposited before the learned Tribunal by the order of this Court dated 30.09.2011 and 50% of the same was to be released in favour of the claimant subject to furnishing of the adequate surety and Shri Deepak Kumar Agarwal, learned counsel for the appellants states that the entire awarded amount had been deposited before the learned Tribunal and in terms of the order of this Court dated 30.09.2011 50% of the amount had already been withdrawn by the claimant, as such the withdrawn amount shall be retained by the claimant.

26. The balance 50% of the awarded amount would be released in favour of the appellants by the learned Tribunal in accordance with law. The statutory amount deposited be remitted to the learned Tribunal within two weeks.

27. Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned Tribunal within two weeks.

28. The learned Tribunal shall inform the claimant about this order within next two weeks.

29. Let the trial court record be transmitted back.

Order Date :- 23.5.2025

S. Shivhare