Sandhya Devi vs Darshna Devi And Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 8263 HP

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Sandhya Devi vs Darshna Devi And Others on 29 August, 2025

Author: Ajay Mohan Goel

Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT
                            SHIMLA
                               CMPMO No.497 of 2025
                                Decided on 29th August, 2025
    Sandhya Devi




                                                           .
                                                ...Petitioner





                            Versus
    Darshna Devi and others
                                            ...Respondents





    Coram

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge
    1
        Whether approved for reporting? Yes




    For the petitioner:      Mr. Ganesh Barowalia, Advocate.

    For the respondents: Dr. Lalit Sharma,                   Advocate,            for
                   r     respondent No.3.

    Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)

Notice confined to respondent No.3 at this stage only.

Dr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of

respondent No.3.

2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has assailed the

order passed by the Court of learned Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal-1, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., in

terms whereof, an application filed under Section 5 of the

Limitation Act by the petitioner for condonation of delay in filing

an application to recall the order, in terms whereof, the claim

petition was dismissed in default was dismissed.

3. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this

petition are that the petitioner filed a claim petition under Section

166 of the Motor Vehicles Act on 10.09.2009, which was

.

dismissed in default on 24.04.2013. For restoration of this

petition, the petitioner approached the learned Tribunal by way of

an application alongwith an application under Section 5 of the

Limitation Act for condonation of delay on 28.08.2023. In terms of

the impugned order, learned Tribunal has dismissed said

application by assigning the following reasons:-

r "As discussed above, the applicant has thrown the

entire blame on the head of her counsel who was appearing for the applicant in the Court by contesting that every time on inquiry, he used to disclose that the matter

is pending. Though there is no cogent and convincing evidence in this regard to construe carelessness of counsel, this by itself cannot be a ground to consone long

and inordinate delay of more than 10 years as the litigant

owes a duty to be vigilant of his own rights and is expected to equally vigilant about the judicial

proceedings pending in the Court initiated at his instance. As per evidence, the applicant was not at all vigilant about the petition which she filed in this Tribunal. The applicant did not bother to check out the fate of her petition for more than 10 years and as such, sufficient cause for condoning the delay has not been shown. The law relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant is

not at all attracted to the present facts and circumstances as in the case of M/s Ultratech Pharmaceuticals (supra), there was no rebuttal evidence to refute the contentions of the applicant and in the case of Rama Nand (supra),

.

the ground to condone the delay was different."

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the

impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law for the

reason that the learned Tribunal erred in not appreciating that

there was no fault on the part of the petitioner, as it was on

account of the non-communication of the order of dismissal by

the learned counsel, who was representing the petitioner that the

application was filed after a delay of 10 years. He argued that in

this case unfortunately, the counsel, who was engaged by the

petitioner passed away after the case was dismissed in default

and, therefore, as the petitioner was not communicated about the

matter having been dismissed in default by anyone. Therefore,

when she came to know of this fact in the month of May 2023,

she immediately took steps to file the application, which was

thereafter filed without any delay. He argued that as the learned

Tribunal has not appreciated these facts in correct perspective,

the impugned order was liable to be set aside. Learned counsel

also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

DHANNALAL versus D.P. VIJAYVARGIYA AND OTHERS (1996)

4 Supreme Court Cases 652 and submitted that in terms of the

.

said judgment when the accident took place, limitation was

prescribed under the Motor Vehicles Act to prefer a claim petition

and, therefore also, learned Tribunal erred in dismissing the

application filed for condonation of delay.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the

respondents submitted that the 10 years delay in filing the

application was totally unexplained and learned Tribunal rightly

rejected the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

He submitted that the case as was mentioned in the application

to condone the delay was built on the foundation of falsity as was

evident from averments made in Para-5 and 7 thereof and as the

applicant had not only approached the Court belatedly, but had

also not approached the Court with clean hands, therefore,

learned Tribunal correctly dismissed the application. Learned

counsel for respondent No.3 also made available for the perusal

of the Court the reply filed to the said application by the owner of

the vehicle, which demonstrated that in the interregnum, a

compromise was arrived between the claimant/petitioner and the

owner of the vehicle. Learned counsel thus submitted that as this

fact was concealed in the application and even in the present

.

petition, therefore, no indulgence as is being prayed for by the

petitioner is called for.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have

also carefully gone through the impugned order as well as other

documents appended with the petition.

7. It is a matter of record that the claim petition filed by

the petitioner was dismissed in default on 24.04.2013 and the

application in issue was filed in the month of August, 2023. A

perusal of the application that was filed under Section 5 of the

Limitation Act demonstrates that in Para 5 thereof, it was

mentioned that the petitioner after filing of the suit was under the

bona fide belief that the case was being taken care of by the

counsel. It is further averred in the application that the petitioner

kept an inquiring of the status of the case from the counsel and

the counsel consistently informed the petitioner that the matter

was pending and as and when the presence of the petitioner

would be required, the petitioner shall be intimated accordingly.

However, in Para-7 of the application, it is averred that after the

cases of some other claimants were decided in the year 2018

and when the petitioner came to know of the said fact in the year

.

2023 and she made inquiry, then, she came to know that the

counsel had expired in the year 2014. Now, this Court fails to

understand that if the counsel representing the petitioner had

already died in the year 2014, then, in terms of averments made

in Para-5 of the application, the petitioner was inquiring the status

of the case from whom. This demonstrates that the averments

made in Para-5 of the application are per se false. The contention

made by learned Counsel for the respondent that in between

matter was compromised between the petitioner and the owner of

the vehicle could also not be demonstrated to be incorrect. In this

backdrop, if one peruses the order passed by the learned

Tribunal, the reasoning given therein for dismissing the

application cannot be faulted with. It is evident and apparent that

the petitioner was careless and was trying to throw the entire

onus upon the counsel, who unfortunately was no more in the

world. Learned Tribunal has rightly held that as the applicant was

not vigilant about the petition and did not bother to check the fate

of the petition for more than 10 years, such huge delay could not

be condoned due to the lack of sufficiency of cause for

condonation of delay.

.

8. As these findings arrived at by the learned Tribunal

are borne out from the record including the evidence which was

led by the parties before the learned Tribunal which was made

available by the learned counsel for the parties for the perusal of

the Court, this Court is of the considered view that the order

under challenge calls for no interference. Otherwise also, the

petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands

compromise affected between her and the owner of the vehicle

has not been disclosed.

9. It is relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Union of India and another versus Jahangir

Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D) through his LRs., 2024 INSC 262, in

which Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that the

length of delay is a relevant matter with which the Court must

take into consideration while considering whether the delay

should be condoned or not. Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in

case titled The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. versus Gopu and

another, 2025 INSC 511 has been pleased to hold that the Courts

cannot extend the period of limitation for misplaced sympathy.

10. Coming to the judgment relied upon by the learned

.

counsel for the petitioner, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

DHANNALAL versus D.P. VIJAYVARGIYA AND OTHERS (1996)

4 Supreme Court Cases 652 (supra) has been pleased to hold

that in terms of the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1994, which

came into force w.e.f. 14.11.1994 Sub-section 3 of Section 166 of

the Act was omitted and the fact thereof was that w.e.f.

14.11.1994 there was no limitation for filing the claim before the

Tribunal in respect of an accident. This Court is of the considered

view that this judgment has no applicability in the facts of this

case because herein, learned Tribunal did not reject a claim

petition filed by the petitioner inter alia on the ground that the

same was time barred. This case would be applicable wherein

the issue is with regard to the rejection of a claim petition itself on

the ground that the same was time barred, obviously, taking into

consideration the statutory provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, as

they existed as on the day when the accident took place.

11. However, as observed hereinabove because herein

this Court is only seized with the dismissal of the application filed

by the petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for

.

condonation of delay in restoring the petition, the petitioner

cannot take benefit of the said judgment.

12. In the light of the above observations, this Court does

not find any merit in the petition, the same is dismissed. Pending

miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(Ajay Mohan Goel)

Judge August 29, 2025 (Vinod)