Delhi High Court
Sushila vs Mahender Sharma & Ors. on 15 April, 2010
Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Reserve: April 9, 2010
Date of Order: 15th April, 2010
CM No. 325/2010 in MAC. APP. No. 5/2010
% 15.04.2010
SUSHILA ... Appellant
Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Adv.
Versus
MAHENDER SHARMA & ORS ... Respondents
Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar, Adv.
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?
JUDGMENT
1. This application has been filed by the appellant under section 5 of
Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 1235 days in filing this appeal. It is
submitted that the appellant was prevented from filing the appeal within the
period of limitation due to various reasons. The appellant was an illiterate
lady. The Tribunal passed award on 4th April, 2006. However, this was not
communicated to her by her counsel. She had also not been able to contact
her counsel as her husband had died on 23rd March, 2007 and her children
were minor at that time. Somehow elder son of the appellant met counsel on
20th February, 2008 after great efforts. In this meeting the counsel advised for
filing an application under section 151 of CPC for modification of the award on
the ground that disability certificate was not considered by the Tribunal for
calculating the compensation. This application was filed on 22 nd February,
2008. The application remained pending and was withdrawn on 8 th
September, 2009 on the advice of another counsel who told the
applicant/appellant that Tribunal had no power to re-consider its own order.
After withdrawal of that application, the present appeal was prepared and
filed.
2. It is submitted by counsel for the appellant that at the time when
proceedings of award were going on, the appellant was still undertaking
treatment as it was a case of crushing of her leg and thereafter the husband
of the appellant suddenly fell sick and died due to which the appellant again
came under shock and could not contact her advocate and could not pay
attention to her case. It was only in the year 2007 that the Doctor gave a
100% disability certificate to the appellant. She could not have produced this
disability certificate before the Tribunal since when the matter was pending
before the Tribunal, her treatment was not complete and the Doctor had
asked her to wait for disability certificate. When she received the disability
certificate, she moved an application before the Tribunal under wrong advice
and guidance. She thereafter withdrew the application. It is submitted that
there were cogent reasons for which appellant could not file appeal before the
Court in time.
3. I consider that the reasons given by the appellant for not being able to
file the appeal in time are genuine and cogent. It was obligatory for the
Tribunal to hold an inquiry in the disability factor of the appellant. The
Tribunal did not hold an inquiry in the disability factor of the appellant. The
appellant later on received disability certificate showing her disability to the
tune of 100 per cent. The appellant thereafter preferred an application,
though under wrong advice, before the Tribunal and after withdrawal of the
application, she filed this appeal. Under these circumstances, I consider that
the reasons given by the appellant in her condonation of delay application are
just and sufficient. The delay in filing this appeal is hereby condoned. The
application stands disposed of.
+MAC. APP. No. 5/2010
The appeal is admitted. List the matter at its own turn in the category
of "Regular Matters".
April 15, 2010 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.
acm
