Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramkailash Gupta vs Geeta Pandey on 13 February, 2024
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
Bench: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
1 M.A. No.384/2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON THE 13th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 384 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
RAMKAILASH GUPTA S/O AMOL GUPTA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCCUPATION-
BUSINESS, R/O VILL. SIROULA PS AND TEH.
MAJHOULI, (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. GEETA PANDEY W/O SUNIL PANDEY, AGED
ABOUT 35 YEARS, VILL. CHAMRADOL P.S AND
TEH. KUSMI (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. GOLU ALIAS SANJNA D/O SUNIL PANDEY,
AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
MINOR THROUGH GUARDIAN MOTHER SMT.
GEETA PANDEY VILLAGE CHAMRADOL
KAROUTI PS AND TAH. KUSMI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. NEW INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
REGIONAL OFFICE NEAR CIRCIUT HOUSE
SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI GULAB CHAND SOHANE, ADVOCATE FOR
RESPONDENT 3)
...................................................................................................................................................................
2 M.A. No.384/2020
This appeal coming on for orders, this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
Heard on I.A. No.533/2020, which is an application under Section
5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing of the
miscellaneous appeal.
2. Registry has reported this appeal to be barred by 168 days.
3. Instant miscellaneous appeal has been preferred by owner of the
vehicle no. MP 65 GA 0979 challenging award dtd. 25.04.2019 passed by
3rd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sidhi in Claim Case
No.18/2017 whereby amount of Rs. 55,900/- has been awarded in favour
of the respondents 1-2 (Geeta Pandey and Golu) payable by the
appellant/owner of the vehicle alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. exonerating
the respondent 3-Insurance Company from the liability.
4. Supporting the averments made in the application under Section 5
of the Limitation Act, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant is unaware about the law of limitation and he could not get
information about the impugned award passed by Tribunal and as and
when he came to know about the impugned award, he applied for and got
the certified copy of the impugned award and came to Jabalpur and
contacted to the counsel for filing the instant appeal, thereupon, the
counsel drafted the appeal and filed immediately before this Court. He
submits that in these circumstances, delay being based on bonafides of
the appellant, deserves to be condoned. He further submits that the
sufficient cause mentioned in Section 5 of the Limitation Act should be
considered liberally. With these submissions he prays for condonation of
delay in filing of the appeal.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent 3 opposed the prayer
for condonation of delay and prayed for dismissal of the application.
6. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.
7. Impugned award appears to have been passed on 25.04.2019,
certified copy of which was applied for on 30.10.2019, which after
preparation was delivered on 31.10.2019 on the basis of which,
miscellaneous appeal has been filed on 10.01.2020.
8. In the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the
appellant has contended that he could not get any information from the
local counsel about the impugned award and when he came to know, he
got applied for certified copy and after delivery of the same, contacted to
the counsel at Jabalpur, who drafted and filed the appeal immediately
before the Court. Certified copy of the award shows that it was delivered
to the appellant on 31.10.2019 but the miscellaneous appeal has been
filed on 10.01.2020.
9. For the reasons best known to the appellant, there is no explanation
for the period between 31.10.2019 to 10.01.2020. Although the
application is very sketchy but as to why the appeal was not preferred
immediately after getting certified copy of the impugned award, has not
been explained in the application. When the appellant came to know
about the impugned award, when he got the certified copy of the award
and when he contacted to the counsel at Jabalpur, nothing has been
mentioned in the application.
10. 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 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.
11. As such, there being no reasonable or proper explanation of 168
days' delay in filing of the miscellaneous appeal, the I.A. No.533/2020
deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.
12. Resultantly, the miscellaneous appeal is also dismissed.
13. No order as to costs.
14. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand dismissed.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
KPS
Date: 2024.02.16 17:06:57 +05'30'
