Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gauri Shankar vs The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. on 11 August, 2023
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON THE 11 th OF AUGUST, 2023
MISC. APPEAL No. 4305 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
1. GAURI SHANKAR S/O KHUSHILAL OCCUPATION:
DRIVER R/O VILLAGE HAIDRAGARH POLICE
STATION VIDISHA DISTRICT VIDISHA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. MEHARBAN SINGH S/O BUNDEL SINGH
OCCUPATION: VEHICLE OWNER R/O VILLAGE
SAKROLI, GANJBASODA P.S. GANJBASODA,
DISTRICT VIDISHA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANTS
(BY SHRI M. SHAFIQULLAH - ADVOCATE )
AND
1. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. THROUGH
ITS MANAGER OFFICE AT IC TP HUB 11 B
INDRAPURI POLICE STATION PIPLANI DISTRICT
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SMT. KESAR BAI W/O UDHAM SINGH, AGED
ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O INDRA NAGAR,
PANCHPEER ROAD, BASODA DISTRICT VIDISHA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. KAMLESH S/O LATE UDHAM SINGH, AGED
ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O INDRA NAGAR,
PANCHPEER ROAD, BASODA DISTRICT VIDISHA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. KU. LAXMI D/O LATE UDHAM SINGH, AGED
ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/O INDRA NAGAR,
PANCHPEER ROAD, BASODA DISTRICT VIDISHA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
5. PROMOD S/O UDHAM SINGH, AGED ABOUT 26
YEARS, R/O INDRA NAGAR, PANCHPEER ROAD,
BASODA DISTRICT VIDISHA (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRASHANT
BAGJILEWALE
Signing time: 8/11/2023
6:51:49 PM
2
6. SMT. DURGA BAI W/O LATE PURAN SINGH, AGED
ABOUT 100 YEARS, R/O INDRA NAGAR,
PANCHPEER ROAD, BASODA DISTRICT VIDISHA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Heard on I.A No.11535/2023 which is an application under Section 5 of
the Limitation for condonation of delay in filing of the miscellaneous appeal.
2. Registry has reported this appeal to be barred by four days.
3. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the delay in filing of the
miscellaneous appeal being based on bonafides of the appellants, is condoned
and I.A No.11535/2023 is allowed and disposed off.
4. Also heard on the question of admission.
5. This miscellaneous appeal has been preferred by the appellants/non-claimants
1-2/driver and owner of the vehicle in question, challenging the order dated
06.04.2023 passed by 3rd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhopal
in MJC No.70/21 whereby appellants' application under Order 9 rule 13 read
with Section 151 CPC, consequent upon dismissal of the application under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act, has been dismissed.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that in the claim petition filed by
respondents 2-6, the appellants being driver and owner/non-claimants 1 and 2
were served with the summons but their duly engaged counsel assured them that
he will take care of the case and also assured that whenever required, he will
inform to them and they were under impression that the claim case must have
been disposed off. When again the summons was served on the appellants, then
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRASHANT
BAGJILEWALE
Signing time: 8/11/2023
6:51:49 PM
they came to know that exparte award has been passed against the appellants,
thereafter they moved an application under Order 9 rule 13 CPC for setting
aside the award dated 31.08.2013 and an application under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act for condonation of delay was also filed, which has been
dismissed by learned Tribunal by the impugned order dated 06.04.2023. He
also submits that sufficient cause mentioned in Section 5 of the Limitation Act
should be construed liberally and because the appellants were not informed by
the counsel, therefore, there was sufficient cause for their non-appearance
before the claim tribunal. With these submissions, he prays for allowing the
miscellaneous appeal.
7. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record.
8. Learned Tribunal in its order dated 06.04.2023 has mentioned that despite
service of notice, the appellants did not appear before the Tribunal in the claim
case and they were proceeded exparte and thereafter, final award was passed
on 31.08.2013. It is also mentioned in the order that an application under Order
9 rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC accompanied with an application under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed, but no affidavit in support of the
application has been filed. It is also not mentioned in the application as to when
the appellants came to know about the exparte award. It is also mentioned in
the order that the appellants have not given reasonable and proper explanation
of delay of about 7 years and 5 months, resultantly, learned Tribunal dismissed
the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act as well as the application
under Order 9 rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC.
9. The Supreme Court in the case of Pundlik Jalam Patil vs. Executive Engineer,
Jalgaon Medium Project and another (2008) 17 SCC 448, has observed that
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRASHANT
BAGJILEWALE
Signing time: 8/11/2023
6:51:49 PM
the Court cannot enquire into belated and stale claims on the ground of equity.
Delay defeats equity. The Courts help those who are vigilant and "do not
slumber over their rights". The aforesaid judgment has further been followed
recently in the case of Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao vs. Reddy Sridevi and
Others AIR 2022 SC 332.
10. In view of aforesaid findings recorded by learned Tribunal and in view of
the aforesaid decision of Supreme Court in the case of Pundlik Jalam Patil
(supra), the learned Tribunal does not appear to have committed any illegality in
passing the impugned order and in dismissing the application under Section 5 of
the Limitation Act.
11. Resultantly, miscellaneous appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
12. Interim application(s), if any, shall stand dismissed.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
pb
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRASHANT
BAGJILEWALE
Signing time: 8/11/2023
6:51:49 PM
