Zalo Devi & Ors vs Umesh Kumar Mahto & Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 4206 Jhar

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                    M.A. No. 59 of 2019
        Zalo Devi & Ors............                           Appellants
                             Versus
        Umesh Kumar Mahto & Anr............                         Respondents
                             ......

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ananda Sen Through:- Video Conferencing ......

        For the Appellants               : Mr. Nikhil Ranjan, Advocate
        For the Respondents              : ----
                                    ......
        I.A. No. 1132 of 2019

3/16.11.2021     This interlocutory application has been filed under Section 5 of

the Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 497 days (though wrongly mentioned in the petition as 495 days).

One of the sons of appellant nos. 1 & 2 died in a motor accident. The appeal is barred by limitation. The judgment and award was passed on 24.06.2017 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bokaro. This appeal has been filed on 01.02.2019. In the application, praying to condone the delay, the ground taken by the appellants is that they were suffering from mental trauma and agony and they are very poor residing in a remote area of the State.

When I go through the petition I find that this is an admitted fact that the certified copy of the judgment and award was only applied on 12.10.2018, though from page 12 of the brief, which is the first page of the certified copy, I find that the application was filed on 04.10.2018 and what was the ground to apply the certified copy after more than one year, has also not been mentioned.

Be it noted that the judgment and award was passed in presence of the counsel. It has also not been mentioned in the entire petition as to when the appellants became aware of the said award. There is nothing on record to suggest that they were informed about the award at a much later date. In absence of such plea, it can be understood that they had knowledge about the award from very inception.

The further ground which has been taken that the appellants are residing in a remote area, cannot be accepted as the address of the appellants suggests that they are the resident of P.S. Balidih in the District of Bokaro, which cannot be said to be a backward area rather it is an industrial developed area of the State. Further, the ground taken that two appellants, i.e. the father and mother of the deceased are illiterate, also cannot be accepted as illiteracy cannot be a ground to condone the delay.

These reasons cannot be said to be a ground basing on which the delay can be condone. Thus, this interlocutory application is dismissed.

Consequently, the main appeal also stands dismissed.

(Ananda Sen, J) Mukund/-cp.2