Delhi High Court
Shakil Ahmad Varshney vs Dr. Alok Varshney & Anr. on 3 July, 2015
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Mac. Appeal No.191/2014
Decided on : 3rd July, 2015
SHAKIL AHMAD VARSHNEY ...... Appellant
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Srivastava, Advocate.
Versus
DR. ALOK VARSHNEY & ANR. ...... Respondents
Through: Mr. Manish Kaushik, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
V.K. SHALI, J. (ORAL)
C.M. No.3932/2014 (for delay)
1. This is an application filed by the appellant under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act seeking condonation of 116 days delay in filing the
appeal.
2. The appellant has been awarded an amount of Rs.2,53,848/- along
with interest @ 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the
claim petition which is 17.11.2007 till its realization by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal. As per Section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988, the appeal against the accident claim has to be filed within a
period of 90 days from the date of the award. The appellant has filed the
appeal with delay of 116 days. The reasons for delay as explained in the
application are as under :-
"2. That the appellant was not present in Delhi due to
some work and he could not contact his counsel to
prepare and file the appeal before the Hon'ble
Court. The appellant came to Delhi in the last week
of November, 2013 and after his arrival, he
immediately contacted with his counsel to prepare
and file the appeal before this Hon'ble Court.
3. That as soon as the appellant contacted, his counsel
immediately drafted the appeal."
3. Section 5 of the Limitation Act lays down that before the delay is
condoned, the applicant must be able to show to the court that it was
prevented by 'sufficient cause' from filing the appeal. The 'sufficient
cause' has been interpreted as a cause by the courts which is beyond
human control. While interpreting the word 'sufficient cause', the Apex
Court has laid down in catena of authorities that the length of the delay is
not material but the bona fides of the person in prosecuting the matter are
to be seen which is laid down in Esha Bhattacharjee vs. Managing
Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy & Ors.; (2013) 12 SCC 649.
4. In the instant case, though the length of delay is not very long;
however, the bona fides of the appellant in prosecuting the matter are
suspect. It seems that the appellant, in the first instance, has accepted the
award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and it belatedly dawned on
him that he ought to file appeal where the appellate court may enhance
the award amount. This is the reason why the explanation which is
furnished by the appellant does not inspire any confidence about its
genuineness. He simply states in the application that he was not present in
Delhi without disclosing where had he gone, on what date did he go,
when did he come back, what is the date when he contacted the counsel
and what prevented him from telephonically contacting his counsel so as
to request him to file an appeal. The submission made in the application
is not even using the word 'sufficient cause' or showing that there was
something which was beyond his control which prevented him from filing
the appeal. The application which has been drafted is in a most casual
and routine manner assuming that the delay will be condoned as a matter
of right. This cannot be permitted to be done especially in the light of
the fact that the courts are reeling under heavy pendency.
5. I feel that the application seeking condonation of delay is bereft of
any genuine reason and accordingly, the same does not deserve to be
allowed. The application is dismissed.
Mac. Appeal No.191/2014
Since the application seeking condonation of delay itself is
dismissed, therefore, the appeal is barred by time and hence dismissed.
V.K. SHALI, J.
JULY 03, 2015
'AA'
