Delhi High Court
Smt. Rajeshwari vs Sh. Shiv Chaudhary & Ors on 5 March, 2014
Author: Suresh Kait
$~19
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 5th March, 2014
+ MAC.APP. No. 727/2013 & CM No.12233/2013
SMT. RAJESHWARI ..... Appellant
Represented by: Mr. K.K. Dubey, Advocate.
Versus
SH. SHIV CHAUDHARY & ORS ..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr. Amit Gaur, Advocate for
Respondent No.3/Insurance
Company.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. This appeal is directed against the impugned award dated 14.08.2012,
whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation for a sum of
Rs.1,37,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of
filing of the claim petition till realization of the amount in favour of the
appellant for the injuries received in the accident.
2. Vide the present appeal, the appellant is seeking enhancement of the
compensation amount noted above.
3. The Appeal is accompanied by an application under consideration
which is for condonation of delay of 252 days in filing the appeal.
4. Before considering the merits of the grounds raised in the appeal, the
appellant is required to cross over the main hurdle of delay in approaching
this Court. The circumstance in which delay in filing appeals under the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is provided in the second proviso to Section 173
(1) of the Act. The same is reproduced for convenience:-
"173. Appeals-(1)....Provided further that the High Court may
entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of
ninety days, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented
by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal in time."
5. From the above, it is manifest that an appeal filed after the expiry of
period of 90 days may be entertained by the High Court only if it is satisfied
that the appellant was "prevented by sufficient cause" from preferring it
within the prescribed period. It is thus obvious that discretion in condoning
delay may be exercised by the High Court only if the appellant is successful
in showing that he was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the
appeal in time.
6. Keeping in view this principle, let us examine as to whether in the
present case the appellant has been successful in satisfying the aforesaid
requirement.
7. The grounds for condonation of delay have been mentioned in Paras-2
to 8, which are reproduced as under:
" 2. That after receiving the compensation amount from the
Ld. Tribunal, the appellant was under depression and
was undergoing her treatment.
3. That the appellant is an illiterate lady and was not aware
of appeal proceedings and in the month of July, 2013, the
nephew of the appellant who is also an appellant in
another case asked her that the compensation amount
awarded in her favour was on lower side as one of the
relatives of the nephew of the appellant who is an
Advocate asked the nephew of the appellant that the
compensation amount was on lower side in his aunt‟s i.e.
the appellant herein case and asked her to file an appeal
for enhancement of compensation.
4. That as such on 15.07.2013 the appellant alongwith his
nephew contacted her counsel for filing the appeal for
enhancement of compensation and hence the present
appeal.
5. That in the above noted case, the Ld. Tribunal has
awarded a sum of Rs.1,37,000/- vide judgment
dt.14.08.2012.
6. That the above noted appeal was to be filed on or before
14.11.2012 within limitation period.
7. That the present appeal is barred by 68 days (sic „252‟)
due to the reason stated above.
8. That the delay in filing the present appeal is neither
intentional nor deliberate but to the above said reason."
8. On a perusal of the pleadings as set out above, it is evident that it is a
case of gross negligence and latches. Moreover, counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant has also failed to give any plausible explanation for
this inordinate delay.
9. In view of the above discussion, the application for condonation of
delay is liable to be rejected for the following reasons:
(I) It is clear from paragraphs 2 to 4 that although in the month of July,
2013, nephew of the appellant had advised her to file an appeal and
thereafter, on 15.07.2013, she alongwith her nephew had contacted
her counsel for filing an appeal for enhancement of compensation,
however, the instant appeal was filed only on 07.08.2013. There is no
explanation at all as to what had prevented her from filing the appeal
in time. It is also not explained as to why it took 22 days in filing this
appeal even after contacting the counsel on 15.07.2013.
(II) A litigant cannot take advantage of hers own misdeeds in prosecution
of the case.
(III) The delay of about 252 days in this case is not bona fide and in the
peculiar facts and circumstances of this case is not liable to be
condoned.
(IV) The application is bereft of any cause, let alone sufficient cause,
which prevented him from filing the appeal within time and the
pleadings are absolutely vague, nebulous and devoid of any material
particulars in order to satisfy the second proviso to Section 173 (1) of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, reproduced above in order to enable
this Court to exercise its discretion in condoning the inordinate delay
in filing the appeal.
10. For the aforesaid reasons, I have no hesitation in holding that the
appellant has failed to show that he was prevented by sufficient cause in
preferring the appeal so belatedly. The application for condonation of delay
is accordingly rejected.
11. In the result, the MAC Appeal is dismissed.
12. No order as to costs.
SURESH KAIT, J.
MARCH 05, 2014
jg/sb
