Indumati Bhanuprasad Parmar W/O ... vs Mustakbhai Basheerbhai Khokhan
2021 Latest Caselaw 14239 Guj

       C/CA/2680/2019                                ORDER DATED: 16/09/2021




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
                   R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2680 of 2019
                    In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 16725 of 2019

==========================================================
      INDUMATI BHANUPRASAD PARMAR W/O NAGEENBHAI PARMAR
                             Versus
                MUSTAKBHAI BASHEERBHAI KHOKHAN
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. SABIR B SAIYYAD(6322) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MR TANMAY B KARIA(6833) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED(64) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================

     CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA

                              Date : 16/09/2021

                                ORAL ORDER

Heard learned advocate Mr. Sabir Saiyyad for the applicants and learned advocate Mr. Tanmay Karia for respondent No.3. Rule is served on respondent Nos. 1 and 2, however, none has chosen to appear.

2. It is to condone the delay of 582 days that the present application is filed by the applicants claimants. Delay has taken place in challenging judgment and award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for enhancement of the compensation amount by way of First Appeal.

3. Explaining the delay, it is stated in the application that the judgment and award was delivered on 7.7.2017, but actual award / bill of cost was prepared and delivered on 28.10.2017. The First Appeal was required to be filed on or before 5.10.2017.

4. It is further stated that the applicants upon being informed about the judgment and award, the applicants sought opinion from the advocate regarding filling of the appeal. It is stated that being unaware of the

C/CA/2680/2019 ORDER DATED: 16/09/2021

limitation period to be observed, time elapsed before the applicants claimants could contact the advocate. It was then stated that paucity of money to meet with the legal expenses contributed further in causing the delay resulting into 582 days.

5. It is true that the delay is of 582 days, however from the reasons advanced, it is not possible to infer that the applicants were not interested in filling the appeal for enhancement or that they whiled away time for the sake of while away. The factors of non-availability of money to meet with the legal expenses etc. are germane to render the explanation bona fide. It could be said to be constituting sufficient cause having regard to the principle that liberal approach has to be adopted in the matter of condoning delay and in construing the sufficient cause when good causes are shown.

5.1 At the same time, looking to the extent of delay, it will balance the interest of the parties if the applicants are put to terms while condoning the delay. Therefore, it is provided that the applicants shall have to forgo the interest for the delayed period in the event they finally succeed in the appeal. Learned advocate for the applicants fairly stated that the applicants are ready to forgo the interest.

6. In the aforesaid view, the present Civil Application is allowed by condoning the delay of 582 days. However, it is provided that in the event of applicants succeeding in their appeal for enhancement, they will not be entitled to claim interest for the delayed period of 582 days.

7. The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule is made absolute.

(N.V.ANJARIA, J) C.M. JOSHI