Madras High Court
M/S Roya Sundaram General ... vs Subramaniam on 17 April, 2023
CMP No.5998 of 2023 and
CMA SR No.30081 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 17.04.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI
CMP No.5998 of 2023 and
CMA SR No.30081 of 2023
M/s Roya Sundaram General Insurance Company Limited,
Sundaram Towers, No.45 & 46, Whites Road,
Chennai 600 014. . ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. Subramaniam
2. Shajreen Sultana .... Respondents
Prayer in CMP No.5998 of 2023: Petition filed under Section 173(1) of
the Motor Vehicles Act, to condone the delay of 276 days in preferring the
appeal, against the Award dated 11.10.2021 made in MCOP No.1025/2014
by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Motor accidents Claims Tribunal,
Dharmapuri.
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMP No.5998 of 2023 and
CMA SR No.30081 of 2023
Prayer in CMA SR No.30081 of 2023: Civil Miscellaneous Petition
filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, to set aside the decree
and judgment dated 11.10.2021 passed in MCOP No.1025/2014 by the
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Motor accidents Claims Tribunal, Dharmapuri.
For Petitioner : Ms.Harini
for Mr.M.B.Gopalan Associates
For Respondents : No appearance
ORDER
(Order of the Court was delivered by D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.)
Challenging the Award dated 11.10.2021 in MCOP No.1025/2014
passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Motor accidents Claims Tribunal,
Dharmapuri, the present appeal has been preferred along with the instant
petition to condone the delay of 276 days in preferring the Appeal.
2. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.29,00,000/- as compensation to
the claimant/first respondent herein for the injuries sustained by him in a
road accident that took place on 22.03.2013 and directed the insurance
company/petitioner herein to deposit the compensation amount. Challenging
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMP No.5998 of 2023 and
CMA SR No.30081 of 2023
the quantum of compensation, the petitioner has preferred the instant
appeal. In the affidavit filed along with the petition to condone the delay, it
is stated that the papers were forwarded to the Regional Office at Chennai
for preferring appeal and after following administrative exigencies, the
appeal has been filed and in such circumstances, 276 days delay is occurred.
Such reason stated in the affidavit is not a bonafide reason. Further, while
the matter was listed for hearing on 27.03.2023, this Court has directed the
petitioner to file better affidavit. Accordingly, better affidavit has been
filed. However, in the better affidavit also, no proper explanation and
satisfactory reasons are assigned.
3. At this juncture, it is to be mentioned that, condoning the delay is
not an automatic and the discretion to condone the delay has to be exercised
judiciously, based on facts and circumstances of each case. While filing a
case with delay, each and every day's delay must be explained. But we are
not satisfied with the reasons assigned in the affidavit to condone the above
said delay. At this juncture, it is worthwhile to note that, with regard to
inordinate delay, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision in Majji
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMP No.5998 of 2023 and
CMA SR No.30081 of 2023
Sannemma alias Sanyasirao Vs. Reddy Sridevi and others reported in
2021 SCC Online SC 1260, has observed as follows.
18. In the case of P.K.Ramachandran (supra), while refusing to
condone the delay of 565 days, it is observed that in the absence of
reasonable, satisfactory or even appropriate explanation for seeking
condonation of delay, the same is not to be condoned lightly. It is
further observed that the law of limitation may harshly affect a
particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the
statute so prescribes and the courts have no power to extend the period
of limitation on equitable grounds. It is further observed that while
exercising discretion for condoning the delay, the Court has to exercise
discretion judiciously
19. In the case of Paundlik Jalam Patil (supra), it is observed as
under:-
" The laws of limitation are founded on public policy.
Statutes of limitation are sometimes described as "statutes
of peace". An unlimited and perpetual threat of limitation
creates insecurity and uncertainty; some kind of limitation
is essential for public order. The principle is based on the
maxim " interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium ", that is,
the interest of the State requires that there should be end to
litigation but at the same time laws of limitation are a
means to ensure private justice suppressing fraud and
perjury, quickening diligence and preventing oppression.
The object for fixing time-limit for litigation is based on
public policy fixing a lifespan for legal remedy for the
purpose of general welfare. They are meant to see that the
parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but avail their legal
remedies to see that the parties do not resort to dilatory
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMP No.5998 of 2023 and
CMA SR No.30081 of 2023
tactics but avail their legal remedies promptly. Salmond in
his Jurisprudence states that the laws come to the assistance
of the vigilant and not of the sleepy".
20. In the case on Basawaraj (supra), it is observed and held by
this Court that the discretion to condone the delay has to be exercised
judiciously based on facts and circumstances of each case. It is further
observed that the expression "sufficient cause" cannot be liberally
interpreted if negligence, inaction or lack of bonafides is attributed to
the party. It is further observed that even though limitation may harshly
affects rights of a party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when
prescribed by statute. It is further observed that in case a party has acted
with negligence, lack of bonafides or there is inaction then there cannot
be any justified ground for condoning the delay even by imposing
conditions. It is observed that each application for condonation of delay
has to be decided within the framework laid down by this Court. It is
further observed that if courts start condoning delay where no sufficient
cause is made out by imposing conditions then that would amount to
violation of statutory principles and showing utter disregard to
legislature.
21. In the case of Pundlik Jalam Patil (supra), it is observed by
this Court 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".
Therefore, in the light of the above decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
we are of the considered view that the petitioners have not approached the
Court within the reasonable time and also they have not given any bonafide
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMP No.5998 of 2023 and
CMA SR No.30081 of 2023
reason to condone the delay of 276 days, in filing the appeal. Hence, the
petition to condone the delay is liable to be dismissed and inview of the
same, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal also cannot be entertained.
4. Accordingly, the petition in CMP No.5998 of 2023 is dismissed.
Consequently, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in CMA SR No.30081 of
2023 is also rejected at the SR Stage itself.
(D.K.K.J.) (K.G.T.J.)
17.04.2023
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
mst
To
The Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Motor Accident Claim Tribunal,
Dharmapuri.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CMP No.5998 of 2023 and
CMA SR No.30081 of 2023
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
and
K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.
mst
CMP No.5998 of 2023 and
CMA SR No.30081 of 2023
17.04.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
