Ashwani Sharma vs New India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
2016 Latest Caselaw 170 Del

*                HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+               MACA 13/2016

                                           Decided on:8th January, 2016

       ASHWANI SHARMA                                    ..... appellant
                   Through:           Mr. Atul Sharma with Mr. Manish
                                      Jain and Mr. Abhishek Sharma,
                                      Advocates.

                         versus

       NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS. ..... Respondent
                     Through: Mr. Shoumik Mazumdar,
                     Advocate for respondent No.1.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI

V.K. SHALI, J (ORAL)


1.   This is an appeal filed by the appellant against an award dated

     04.06.2012, by virtue of which the MACT has awarded a sum of Rs.

     4,59,000/- to the appellant on account of the death of Mr. Sohail

     Ahmed Khan. The award has been passed on 04.06.2012 and the

     present appeal has been filed by the owner of the vehicle after 1201

     days delay.    Reasons for delay, which have been stated by the

     appellant in the application are that after the award was passed, the

     appellant was informed by the previous counsel that he has won the


MACA. 13/2016                                             Page 1 of 4
      case, however this fact was found to be totally incorrect when he

     received summons for execution of the award from the court,

     whereupon it is stated that he applied for a certified copy on

     15.10.2015, which was prepared on 26.10.2015 and received on

     02.11.2015 and learnt about the award having been passed against

     him.       He immediately engaged a counsel and filed the present

     appeal. This is resulted in delay of 1201 days delay. It is contended

     that the delay was not intentional and deliberate and, therefore, the

     delay may be condoned.

2.   I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone

     through the record. The law regarding condonation of delay is very

     well settled by now and the courts have repeatedly held that Section

     5 of the Limitation Act must be construed liberally to condone the

     delay. However, it has been observed that while condoning the

     delay what is to be seen is not only the length of delay, but the

     bonafides and explanation furnished by the appellant.

3.   In the instant case, the reason for the delay, which has been given by

     the appellant is that he was informed about the case having been

     won by him by his counsel. The appellant has not disclosed the

     name of counsel or his office or residential address. Simply by



MACA. 13/2016                                             Page 2 of 4
      saying that he was informed by the counsel that he has won the case,

     a party would not rest unless and until he sees the orders himself.

     The appellant ought to have requested the counsel to provide a copy

     of the order, which he does not seem to have done. Therefore, he is

     grossly negligent in pursuing the matter.     The plea that he was

     informed by his counsel that he has won the case, and that he only

     came to know that the award has been passed against him, when he

     received the summons from the court, cannot be believed. But what

     is important is that when the appellant learnt about the award having

     been passed against the appellant, what action was taken by him

     against the counsel. Did he informed the Bar Council for filing the

     complaint. There is no mention about this fact in the application.

4.   In the absence of all these details, plea which is taken by the

     appellant seeking condonation of delay about the wrong information

     having been given to him, seems to be only a make believe story and

     is not good enough to inspire confidence of the court that the

     appellant was bonafide for the reason that he was informed about the

     award having been passed in his favour.

5.   All these facts clearly proved that the appellant was totally, unduly,

     grossly negligent. The law does not help those persons, who are



MACA. 13/2016                                              Page 3 of 4
      grossly negligent in taking any action. Moreover, a vested right has

     been created in favour of the claimant, which should not be

     disturbed on flimsy pretext.

6.   For the aforementioned, I feel that application filed by the appellant

     is totally misconceived and the same deserves to be dismissed. As

     the application for condonation of delay is dismissed, the appeal also

     becomes barred by time.




                                                          V.K. SHALI, J.

th JANUARY 8 , 2016 n