Gujarat High Court
Pankajbhai Kasturbhai Chaudhary vs Ramsing Dhanabhai Vasava on 12 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1649/2025 ORDER DATED: 12/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 1649 of
2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2750 of 2025
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1655 of 2025
In
F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2725 of 2025
==========================================================
PANKAJBHAI KASTURBHAI CHAUDHARY
Versus
RAMSING DHANABHAI VASAVA & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR KV GADHIA(319) for the Respondent(s) No. 4
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
Date : 12/09/2025
COMMON ORAL ORDER
1. Heard Mr. Hiren Modi, learned advocate on record for the
applicant- original claimant/ owner of the insured vehicle. Learned
advocate Mr. K.V. Gadhia has entered appearance on behalf of
respondent no.4-Insurance Company. Despite service of notice of rule
upon respondent nos.1 to 3, no appearance has been entered on their
behalf.
2. Considering the limited prayer sought for, the present
application is taken up for hearing, in absence of the said respondents,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1649/2025 ORDER DATED: 12/09/2025
undefined
with the assistance of learned advocates on record for the respective
parties.
3. The present application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act, 1963, read with Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,
praying for condonation of delay of 740 days caused in preferring the
appeal.
4. Learned advocate for the applicant has mainly relied upon the
averments made in the application, and has submitted that looking to
the controversy involved, the applicant had appeared before the
Tribunal in the original claim proceedings, and had filed written
statement objecting to the case of the original claimant at Exh.19,
inter alia, disputing the averments made in the claim petition, by
challenging the occurrence of accident, the involvement of the
offending vehicle, the injuries and the resultant death of the deceased
as well as the age and the income of the deceased. It was submitted
that the driving license of the opponent no.1 was handed over to the
Insurance Company with bona fide impression that offending vehicle
is insured with opponent no.2-Insurance Company. The heavy reliance
was placed on the Insurance Company to take care of the proceedings.
Though, the applicant was represented by a lawyer before the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1649/2025 ORDER DATED: 12/09/2025
undefined
Tribunal; however, the applicant was not made aware about the final
judgment and award being passed by the Tribunal on 20.10.2022,
thereby, issuing directions of pay and recovery against the owner of
the vehicle-applicant herein. It was only when the recovery
proceedings were initiated by the respondent no.4-Insurance
Company by preferring execution proceedings, wherein warrant was
served. Thereafter, the applicant derived knowledge about the
aforesaid judgment and award being passed by the Tribunal.
4.1 Referring to the aforesaid events, learned advocate has
submitted that there was no gross inaction or negligency on the part
of the applicant. Considering the final directions issued by the
Tribunal, an opportunity may be extended to the applicant, who has
otherwise good case on merits. Learned advocate has, therefore,
urged this Court to take liberal approach, and to condone the delay, as
the same has been caused for bona fide reasons.
4.2 Lastly, learned advocate has submitted that appropriate
conditions may be imposed, while condoning the delay.
5. Learned advocate appearing for the respondent no.4-Insurance
Company has forcefully objected to the aforesaid submissions of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1649/2025 ORDER DATED: 12/09/2025
undefined
learned advocate for the applicant. The reliance was placed on the
affidavit-in-reply filed, objecting to condonation of delay. The
attention of this Court was invited to the fact that the applicant had
participated in the proceedings before the Tribunal, wherein the claim
petition was objected by filing written statement. The applicant was
represented by a lawyer. Learned advocate has, therefore, submitted
that it can safely be inferred that the applicant was aware about the
final judgment and award being pronounced in the year-2022.
5.1 Learned advocate has further drawn my attention to the issue
involved, and has submitted that in absence of any valid and effective
driving license not in force, the Tribunal has rightly followed the
principles laid down in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd vs
Swaran Singh & Ors reported in 2004 (3) SCC 297 as well as in the
case of Pappu and Ors. Vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba and Anr. reported in
2018 TAC 360 SC, in the facts of the case, thereby arrived at a
conclusion of issuing appropriate directions of pay and recovery. It
was pointed out that the applicant himself is the driver-cum-owner of
the insured vehicle. In such circumstances, no error can be found with
the approach of the Tribunal in issuing such directions.
5.2 Referring to the aforesaid merits of the case, learned advocate
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1649/2025 ORDER DATED: 12/09/2025
undefined
has submitted that there being no merits in the appeal, this Court may
otherwise also not exercise its discretion and condone the huge delay
of 740 days caused in preferring the appeal.
6. Considering the aforesaid submissions of learned advocates for
the respective parties, in light of the averments made in the
application being deposed on oath, on close perusal of the averments
made in the application, it is evident that the impugned judgment and
award was pronounced on 20.10.2022. Indisputably, the applicant was
represented through a lawyer, who had tendered the written
statement on his behalf objecting to the claim petition. The issue of
non-existence of the license was examined by the Tribunal, wherein
appreciating the evidence brought on record, more particularly, the
driving license of the applicant being produced on record through the
Insurance Company at Exh.56, the Court has opined that there did not
exist any valid and effective driving license at the time of occurrence
of accident.
7. Considering the grounds raised in the appeal memo, the
applicant intends to challenge the aforesaid findings and reasons
assigned by the Tribunal on the touchstone of the interpretation of
Section 14 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, more particularly, sub-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1649/2025 ORDER DATED: 12/09/2025
undefined
section 2(b) of Section 14 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It is found
that the applicant was not made aware about the impugned judgment
and award being pronounced by the learned advocate, who
represented him before the Tribunal.
8. During the course of hearing, it was pointed out that a show
cause notice issued by the Tribunal in the execution proceedings, was
made returnable on 24.07.2024 and thereafter, the applicant had
appeared before the Tribunal on the first date of hearing. The
applicant in the application, has averred on oath that they applied for
certified copy on 14.10.2024, which was received by them on
15.10.2024. Since the statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- was required to
be deposited before pursuing the remedy of appeal before the
concerned Tribunal, further time was consumed in making the
arrangement of funds in this regard. Ultimately, the present appeal
was submitted before the Registry of this Court on 21.01.2025 along
with the application for condonation of delay, which was presented
on 27.01.2025 and registered on 13.03.2025.
9. Noticing the aforesaid dates and the challenge being made, this
Court is inclined to exercise its discretion, in order to extend an
opportunity to the applicant to argue his case on merits. However,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/1649/2025 ORDER DATED: 12/09/2025
undefined
noticing the number of days of delay involved, the present application
seeking condonation of delay of 740 days caused in preferring the
appeal, is hereby allowed, on condition that the costs of Rs. 10,000/-
be deposited with the Registry of this Court before registration of the
First Appeal.
10. With these observations, the present Civil Application stands
disposed of. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
11. Registry is directed to reflect the name of learned advocate Mr.
K.V. Gadhia appearing for the respondent no.4-Insurance Company in
the main appeal.
(NISHA M. THAKORE,J)
SUYASH SRIVASTAVA/SFS/12/09
