Asha Ram Dwivedi vs Smt. Sunita Bai Sen
2023 Latest Caselaw 5987 MP

                            1               M.A. No.1504/2020


IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
            AT JABALPUR
                        BEFORE
     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
                ON THE 12th OF APRIL, 2023
               MISC. APPEAL No. 1504 of 2020
BETWEEN:-

ASHA RAM DWIVEDI S/O SHRI HARIHAR
PRASAD DWIVEDI, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
R/O. NADAN P.S. AND TEHSIL MAIHAR,
DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH) (REGI.
OWNER OF CITY RIDE BUS NO. M.P. 19H/2919)



                                              .....APPELLANT
(BY MS. RANNO RAJAK- ADVOCATE)

AND

1.    SMT. SUNITA BAI SEN W/O LATE SHRI
      LALMAN SEN, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
      OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE R/O. NADAN
      SHARDA PRASAD P.O. NADAN P.S. AND
      TEH MAIHAR, DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA
      PRADESH)



2.    KUMARI SUMAN SEN D/O LATE SHRI
      LALMAN SEN, AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS,
      THROUGH     LEGAL   GUARDIAN    HER
      MOTHER SMT. SUNITA BAI SEN W/O LATE
      SHRI LALMAN SEN, OCCUPATION HOUSE
      WIFE, R/O NANDAN SHARDA PRASAD P.O.
      NADAN, P.S. AND TEHSIL MAIHAR,
      DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)



3.    KUMARI SHIVANI SEN D/O LATE SHRI
      LALMAN SEN, AGED ABOUT 2 YEARS 6
      MONTHS, THROUGH LEGAL GUARDIAN
      HER MOTHER SMT. SUNITA BAI SEN W/O
      LATE SHRI LALMAN SEN, OCCUPATION
                              2                M.A. No.1504/2020


     HOUSE WIFE, R/O NANDAN SHARDA
     PRASAD P.O. NADAN, P.S. AND TEHSIL
     MAIHAR, DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA
     PRADESH)



4.   KUMARI NIDHI SEN D/O LATE SHRI
     LALMAN SEN, AGED ABOUT 3 YEARS,
     THROUGH     LEGAL   GUARDIAN    HER
     MOTHER SMT. SUNITA BAI SEN W/O LATE
     SHRI LALMAN SEN, OCCUPATION HOUSE
     WIFE, R/O NANDAN SHARDA PRASAD P.O.
     NADAN, P.S. AND TEHSIL MAIHAR,
     DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)



5.   SMT. SAVITRI SEN W/O SHRI SUJAN SEN
     OCCUPATION: HOUSE WIFE R/O NADAN
     P.S. AND TEH. MAIHAR DISTT. SATNA M.P.
     (MADHYA PRADESH)



6.   SHRI SUJAN SEN S/O NAMALUM, AGED
     ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/O NADAN P.S. AND
     TEH. MAIHAR DISTT. SATNA (MADHYA
     PRADESH)



7.   DRIVER HEMANT KUMAR TIWARI S/O
     SHRI DWARIKA PRASAD TIWARI, AGED
     ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCCUPATION: DRIVERY
     R/O   LAKHAHA       P.S. AND   TAHSIL
     AMARPATAN,       DISTT.  SATNA  (REG.
     DRIVER OF CITY RIDE BUS NO.
     M.P.19H/2919) (MADHYA PRADESH)



8.   THE NEW INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY
     LTD THROUGH DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
     DIVISION OFFICE REWA ROAD, SATNA
     DISTT          SATNA     (MADHYA
     PRADESH)(INSURER OF CITY RIDE BUS
     NO. M.P.19H/2919)
                                      3                    M.A. No.1504/2020


                                                         .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI OM PRAKASH DWIVEDI- ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS. 1,
2, 4 AND 6)
         This appeal coming on for admission this day, the court passed the

following:

                                    JUDGMENT

Heard on I.A. No. 3249/2020, an application for condonation of delay.

2. The undisputed fact is that the appellant is the owner and driver of the offending vehicle and he was dully served in the Claims Tribunal and he also appeared and submitted his written statement. It appears that thereafter he did not appear before the Claims Tribunal.

3. The application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act reads as under:-

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR

M.A. No.1504/2020

APPELLANT : Asha Ram Dwivedi

VERSUS

RESPONDENT : Smt. Sunita Bai Sen & others.

APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 5 OF THE LIMITATION ACT

The applicant begs to submit as under:-

1. That, the appellant preferred M.A. before this Hon'ble Court for liability of respondent No. 8 of the award passed by the learned tribunal.

2. That delay in filing of the appeal as under:

             Date of award             21.12.2006
             21 Dec. 2006 to           Copy applied - 06.02.2020
             27 Feb. 2020              Copy received- 11.02.2020
                                       Expend day in copy- 05
                                       Day of Limitation- 90

             Total -     4812        Total -     95
             Less -      98
             Day delay in filing     - 4704

3. That, the delay in filing the appeal is unintentional hence deserves to be condone in the interest of justice.

4. An affidavit in support of this application is being filed here with.

PRAYER

It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this application and condone the delay in filing the appeal in the interest of justice.

      Place- Jabalpur                        (M.P. Rajak)
      Dated- 27.02.2020               Advocate for the Appellant"

4. The appeal has been filed with delay of 4704 days. Except mentioning that the delay in filing the appeal is unintentional, no ground has been mentioned as to why the appeal was not filed within the period of limitation.

5. Since, the appellant has failed to make out any sufficient cause for condoning the delay specifically when he was represented before the Claims Tribunal and had also filed his written statement.

6. Accordingly, I.A. No. 3249/2020 is hereby rejected.

7. As a consequence thereof, the appeal is dismissed as barred by time.

(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE ashish

ASHISH KUMAR LILHARE 2023.04.13 11:07:45 +05'30'