Chattisgarh High Court
Anjali vs Dharmendra @ Dhhalu And Ors on 8 April, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Reserved on 24/02/2022
Order Delivered on 08/04/2022
MAC No. 140 of 2015
Anjali Ieach W/o Late Dulal Ieach Aged About 43 Years, R/o
Village Post Office Mana, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
1. Dharmendra @ Dhhalu S/o Damru Sahu R/o Village Pahadi
Chowk Lodhipara Gudhiyari Raipur, District- Raipur,
Chhattisgarh.
2. Kishan Lal S/o Shuklal Janghel R/o Lodhipara Gudhiyari,
Shyam Staition Road Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
3. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Through its
Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company
Limited, Shiv Mohan Bhawan Vidhan Shabha Road Pandri,
Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
4. Shikha W/o Late Gopal Ieach Aged About 20 Years, R/o P.O,
Mana, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
For Appellant : Mr. A.L. Singroul, Adv.
For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Sangeet Kumar Kushwaha, Adv.
For Respondent No. 4. : Mr. Akhilesh Mishra, Adv.
For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : None, though notice has been
served through paper publication.
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey
C A V Order
1. Heard. On I.A. No. 01, application for condonation of 2572
days' delay in filing the appeal.
2. This Appeal is directed against the judgment dated
25.09.2007 passed by the learned 12 th Additional Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G.)
2
in Claim Case No. 50/2007. Appellant has filed this appeal for
enhancement of the compensation amount awarded by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (C.G.).
3. Appellant seeks condonation of 2572 days' delay in filing the
appeal against the award dated 25.09.2007 passed by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (C.G.). The application
seeking condonation of delay states that the appellant No. 1
(in claim Tribunal) who was the husband of the present
appellant died after passing of the impugned award and the
present appellant was not aware about the case/award
because she is illiterate. There is a delay of 2572 days in
filing the instant appeal, the delay so caused is bona fide and
unintentional. The appellant is a rustic villager having no
knowledge about the procedure for filing an appeal and the
limitation thereof. The appellant does not know about the
legal proceeding and when she attended the legal seminar at
the village, organized by legal service committee then she
come to know and she filed the appeal before the High Court
claiming that the liability may be shifted upon the insurance
company and the compensation awarded by the tribunal may
be enhanced. The counsel appearing before the learned
Claims Tribunal advised the counsel for the appellant to file
appeal for enhancement before this Hon'ble Court as the
amount of award is on the lower side and the appellant after
obtaining the necessary documents and relevant records filed
the instant appeal. The delay is caused due to obtaining
necessary documents and arranging money for filing the
3
instant appeal. Lastly it is submitted that the appellant is the
only member in her house and she has not intentionally or
deliberately caused delay in filing the appeal, hence the
delay of 2572 days is bona fide for the above said reasons.
He has placed his reliance upon the decision of the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Sudama and
others vs. Lalsingh and others1.
4. None for the respondents No. 1 and 2, though notice has
been served through paper publication.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents No. 3 and 4 opposed the
application for condonation of delay and submitted that there
is more than seven years delay in filing the appeal, therefore,
the said application is liable to be rejected. He has placed his
reliance upon the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in
the matter of Purohit and Company vs. Khatoonbee and
Another2.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
7. Hon'ble the High Court of Madhya Pradesh held in the matter
of Sudama (Supra) which reads thus :-
............
"13. True it is that in filing appeal there is a
delay of near about four years, but it is a settled
proposition of law that in the Indian culture it is
not expected from uneducated villagers or
agriculturists or labour class that they are
acquainted with the legal procedure, specifically
1 2017 ACJ 315
2 (2017) 4 SCC 783
the provision of limitation, to file appeal, and, in
such premises, their application for condonation
of delay could not be thrown away saying that
the same has been filed after a long delay. In the
aforesaid circumstance, this appeal could not be
dismissed only on account of filing it at belated
stage. Such aspect was considered by the Apex
Court long before while considering the matter
of substitution of legal representatives on record
at very belated stage, i.e., near about six years
in the matter of Ram Sumiran v. D.D.C., 1985
ACJ 569 (SC) and the application was allowed."
"14. Apart from the aforesaid, I am of the
considered view that provision of claim under
the Motor Vehicles Act has been enacted
keeping in view social welfare of the society at
large and under section 173 of the aforesaid Act
provision for condoning the delay in filing the
appeal has also been provided. If such law is
enacted for welfare of the society at large, then
merely on account of delay in filing the appeal,
the appeal of a person like the appellants, out of
them some were minors, could not be thrown
away by dismissing the application under section
5 of the Limitation Act."
8. For the reasons stated in the application, and as above cited
law, I find sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 2572
days in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the I.A. No. 01 is
allowed. Delay of 2572 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
9. List this case for admission in due course.
Sd/-
(Rajani Dubey)
Judge
H.L. Sahu
