Delhi High Court
Jai Prakash vs Mohd. Munawar & Ors. on 14 August, 2012
Author: G.P. Mittal
$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 14th August, 2012
+ MAC. APP. No.634/2012 & CM. APPL. No.10342/2012(delay)
JAI PRAKASH ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. S.N. Kalra, Advocate
Versus
MOHD. MUNAWAR & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Nemo
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
1. The Appellant Jai Prakash impugns a judgment dated 19.09.2009 passed
by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(the Claims Tribunal) whereby
while awarding a compensation of `57,660/- in his favour, it was held
that he had contributed to the accident and the Respondents No.1 and 2
were made liable to pay only 50% of the compensation.
2. In the impugned judgment, the Claims Tribunal referred to the
Appellant's MLC at the time of his admission. It was stated that the
Appellant was conscious but was drowsy and there was smell of alcohol.
Admittedly, the Appellant suffered fracture in his right leg. He did not
produce any evidence with regard to his income at the time of the
accident. He produced an Income Tax Return for the A.Y. 2007-08 that
too at the time of his arguments, although the accident took place in the
year 1999. There was no evidence of Appellant's educational
qualification or his income. The Claims Tribunal awarded him
compensation for loss of income for six months on the basis of Minimum
Wages of an unskilled worker; apart from expenditure on medicine as per
actual bills, a compensation of `30,000/- was awarded towards pain and
suffering. The compensation awarded is tabulated hereunder:
Sl.No. Compensation under various Awarded by the
heads Claims Tribunal
1. Loss of Income `16,800/-
2. Medical Expenses ` 860/-
3. Pain and Suffering ` 30,000/-
4. Special Diet ` 5,000/-
5. Conveyance ` 5,000/-
Total ` 57,660/-
3. The Appellant's grievance is that the compensation awarded towards pain
and suffering considering, the nature of injuries, is on the lower side. It is
stated that he is still suffering from the after effects of the injuries.
4. The compensation towards non-pecuniary heads is to be granted on the
scale as prevalent at the time of the accident and not at the time when the
Claim Petition is decided. As stated earlier, the accident took place in the
year 1999. A compensation of `30,000/- towards pain and suffering and
`5,000/- each towards special diet and conveyance was just and
reasonable considering that the Appellant suffered fracture of his right leg
and a rod was inserted to give strength to it and for union of the bone.
The Claims Tribunal was justified in holding the Appellant to have
contributed to the accident because it was a head-on collision and the
Appellant was under the influence of liquor. It was clearly stated on the
MLC that the Appellant was conscious but drowsy and there was smell of
alcohol. Thus, there is no merit in the Appeal.
5. Along with the Appeal, an Application for condonation of delay of 935
days has been filed. The award was passed on 19.09.2009. The
Appellant merrily stated in the Application that he could not know of the
order passed by the Claims Tribunal as he was pre-occupied in his
business. He came to know of the order only in February, 2011. The
Appeal was filed only in May, 2012. The other explanation given is that
the clerk of the Appellant's counsel met with an accident and the file of
the case was in his custody. Even if the explanation for the delay after
February, 2011 is accepted, there is no satisfactory explanation for the
delay from September, 2009 to February, 2011.
6. Principles enunciated for condonation of delay are well settled.
Expression 'sufficient cause' should be given liberal interpretation so as
to advance substantial justice between the parties. (Balwant Singh v.
Jagdish Singh (2010) 8 SCC 685; State of Karnataka v. Y. Moideen
Kunhi (Dead) By LRs and Others (2009) 13 SCC 192; Ram Nath Sao v.
Gobardhan Sao (2002) 3 SCC 195; N. Balakrishnan v. M.
Krishnamurthy (1998) 7 SCC 123; G.Ramegowda, Major and Others v.
Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore and Basavalingappa v.
Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore, (1988) 2 SCC 142). It is
not the length of delay which is material for condonation of delay in
filing an Appeal but the acceptability of the explanation given for the
same. There may be cases where a few months' delay may not be
condoned as an applicant has no reasonable explanation to offer for the
same, yet there are cases where delay of several years has been condoned.
(State of Nagaland v. Lipok Ao and Others (2005) 3 SCC 752; Ramnath
Sao v. Gobardhan Sao (2002) 3 SCC 195; M.K.Prasad v. P. Arumugam
2001 (6) SCC 176; State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Prasad Singh and
Another 2000 (9) SCC 94; N.Balakrishnan v. M.Krishnamurthy (1998)
7 SCC 123). The law that each day's delay must be explained has
mellowed down yet it has to be shown by the applicant that there was
neither any gross negligence nor any inaction, nor want of bonafides.
7. As stated earlier, the Appellant has not explained the long delay from
September, 2009 to February, 2011. Thus, apart from the fact that there
is no merit in the Appeal, the Appellant has not been able to give
sufficient cause for condonation of delay.
8. The Application for condonation of delay and consequently the Appeal
are dismissed.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
AUGUST 14, 2012
pst
