Sanjaykumar Mansukhbhai Mehta vs Prahlad Surendrasingh Rajput
2021 Latest Caselaw 14355 Guj

      C/CA/2214/2019                                            ORDER DATED: 17/09/2021


            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                       R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2214 of 2019
                        In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 23386 of 2019
==========================================================
                       SANJAYKUMAR MANSUKHBHAI MEHTA
                                   Versus
                        PRAHLAD SURENDRASINGH RAJPUT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR GC MAZMUDAR(1193) for the Respondent(s) No. 4
MR HG MAZMUDAR(1194) for the Respondent(s) No. 4
RULE SERVED(64) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
RULE UNSERVED(68) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA

                               Date : 17/09/2021

                                     ORAL ORDER

Heard learned advocate Mr.Hiren Modi for the applicant, learned advocate Mr.G.C. Mazmudar for respondent No.4, whereas Rule is served upon respondent No.3 but none appears.

1.1 Unserved respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the driver and owner respectively who, as per the request of learned advocate for the applicant, are deleted from the array of parties for the purpose of deciding the present application which is for condonation of delay.

2. Delay of 322 days has arisen at the end of the applicant-claimant in preferring the First Appeal against judgment and award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Appeal is for enhancement in compensation.

3. Judgment and award was delivered on 05 th

C/CA/2214/2019 ORDER DATED: 17/09/2021

June, 2018 and certified copy was applied on 06th June, 2018. It is stated that until the awarded amount was deposited with the Tribunal and partially disbursed in favour of the applicant, applicant did not have any funds. He was poor person unable to afford legal expenses. It is only after the amount was received, he could approach advocate to arrange to prefer appeal.

4. For a poor litigant, non-availability of funds for legal expenses constitutes a good ground if filing of appeal is delayed on that count. In the facts of the case, reason supplied makes out sufficient cause.

5. When asked about length of delay, learned advocate for the applicant fairly stated that the Court may put condition that in the event of applicant-appellant succeeds in the appeal, he would not claim interest for the delayed period.

6. In the above view and since sufficient cause if made out, delay of 322 day is condoned, by providing however as condition that the applicant shall not be entitled to receive interest for the delayed period of 322 days in the event he succeeds in the appeal.

7. Application is allowed. Delay stands condoned. Rule is made absolute accordingly.

(N.V.ANJARIA, J) ANUP