Delhi High Court
Rakesh Kumar & Anr. vs Pratap Singh & Anr. on 6 February, 2009
Author: J.R. Midha
13
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ MAC. APP. No.134/2008
Reserved on : 20th January, 2009
Date of decision: 6th February, 2009
%
RAKESH KUMAR & ANR. ..... Appellants
Through : Mr. D.K. Sharma, Adv.
versus
PRATAP SINGH & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Anand Vardhan Sharma,
Adv. for R-2.
CORAM :-
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may
be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be
reported in the Digest?
J.R. Midha, J.
CM No.3123/2008
1. There is a delay of 455 days in filing of this appeal. The
impugned award was passed on 19th August, 2006 and the
present appeal has been filed on 15th February, 2008.
2. The reasons for condonation given in the application are
that the counsel prepared the appeal in November, 2006 but
the same was kept pending as the certified copy was not
available. It is further stated that during winter vacations, i.e.
after more than a year the clerk of the counsel detected that
the appeal had not been filed and he immediately applied for
certified copy on the reopening on 4th January, 2008 and,
thereafter, the appeal was filed.
3. The application does not sufficiently explain the delay of
455 days. Since the appeal was prepared in November, 2006,
there is no explanation for the period November, 2006 to
January, 2008. The conduct of the appellant's counsel and his
clerk shows sheer negligence. The conduct of the appellant
has also not been explained.
4. I am of the view that no case for condonation of delay is
made out in the present case.
5. While dealing with the application of condonation of
delay, the case on merits also need to be examined and a
good case on merits should not be thrown out merely on the
ground of gross delay because by condoning the delay, the
appellant only gets the opportunity of being heard on merits
and nothing more. I have, therefore, examined the merits of
this case.
6. Even on merits, the appellant has not been able to make
out a good case. The appeal relates to the death of a girl
aged 14 years in the motor accident. The appellant filed the
petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
The learned Tribunal has computed the compensation
according to the Second Schedule by taking the notional
income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum and by
applying the multiplier of 15, the compensation has been
worked out at Rs.1,50,000/- to which the funeral expenses of
Rs.2,000/- have been added. The total compensation has
been computed at Rs.1,52,000/- on which interest @6% has
been awarded by the learned Tribunal. The appellant has
challenged the award on the ground that the income of the
deceased should have been taken at Rs.22,000/- per annum
instead of Rs.15,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- should have been
awarded on account of loss of love and affection, loss of
estate.
7. The learned Tribunal has awarded compensation as per
Second Schedule under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988. I do not find any infirmity in the same. There is no
merit in the appeal.
8. I, therefore, dismiss the application for condonation of
delay.
MAC.APP. 134/2008
1. The appeal is dismissed as time barred.
2. No costs.
J.R. MIDHA, J
February , 2009
aj
