Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajpal vs Sheela And Others on 26 August, 2021
CM No.7602-CII of 2021 in/and -1-
FAO No.849 of 2021 (O&M)
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CM No.7602-CII of 2021 in/and
FAO No.849 of 2021 (O&M)
Date of decision:26.08.2021
Rajpal ... Appellant
Versus
Smt. Sheela and others ... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA
Present: Mr. Jagjeet Beniwal, Advocate, for the applicant-appellant.
(The proceedings are conducted through video
conferencing, as per instructions.)
G.S. Sandhawalia, J. (Oral)
The present appeal is barred by 1535 days in filing the appeal
against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani, dated
09.03.2017, which is being filed by the owner of the vehicle.
Vide the impugned award, a sum of Rs.25,60,000/- was awarded
on account of the death of Ram Avtar in the accident, which took place on
09.07.2014. The liability has been fixed upon the present appellant being the
owner as the license of the driver was fake, whereas the Insurance Company
was ordered to pay the amount of compensation and recover the same from
the owner of the offending vehicle. The reason given for delay in filing the
appeal is that the counsel engaged by the appellant before the Tribunal had
informed the appellant that the Insurance Company had been held liable to
pay the compensation and no further action was required to be taken by him.
On account of the demand notice dated 17.06.2021, which has now been
received, the knowledge is stated to have come to the appellant regarding the
factum that the award had been passed against him. On the said account, it
has been contended that the delay is neither intentional nor willful and the
1 of 3
CM No.7602-CII of 2021 in/and -2-
FAO No.849 of 2021 (O&M)
same is sought to be condoned.
In the considered opinion of this Court, sufficient cause is not
made out to condone the delay. The appellant was represented by common
counsel who had also appeared for the driver before the Tribunal and duly
contested the proceedings and being owner of the dumper, he was using it for
commercial purposes. It was his duty, as such, to peruse the award of the
Tribunal to his satisfaction to find out that the liability, as such, was imposed
on him or not. It was the specific case before the Tribunal of the Insurance
Company that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and
effective driving license and, therefore, the proceedings had been accordingly
conducted in that manner. The appellant also did not appear as a witness to
defend the case. The appellant should have been well aware that in view of a
adverse decision of the Tribunal the responsibility could have been shifted
upon him and now cannot plead ignorance, as such, regarding the factum that
the liability was imposed upon him vide the award which had been passed
more than 4 years back.
It is also matter of record that the Insurance Company, as such,
had also challenged the said award by filing FAO No.3416 of 2017, in which
the award was only modified to the extent that the amount of compensation
was reduced to Rs.24,98,000/- from Rs.25,60,000/- on 20.11.2019.
Similarly, FAO No.493 of 2018, filed by the claimants, was also rejected vide
order of the even date.
The law of limitation may be harsh but sufficient cause should
have been shown, which, in the present case, is not made out. Reliance in this
regard can be placed upon a judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the
2 of 3
CM No.7602-CII of 2021 in/and -3-
FAO No.849 of 2021 (O&M)
case of Balwant Singh vs. Jagdish Singh and others, 2010 AIR (SC) 3043.
Relevant portion reads as under:
"16. Above are the principles which should control the exercise of
judicial discretion vested in the Court under these provisions. The
explained delay should be clearly understood in contradistinction to
inordinate unexplained delay. Delay is just one of the ingredients
which has to be considered by the Court. In addition to this, the
Court must also take into account the conduct of the parties, bona
fide reasons for condonation of delay and whether such delay could
easily be avoided by the applicant acting with normal care and
caution. The statutory provisions mandate that applications for
condonation of delay and applications belatedly filed beyond the
prescribed period of limitation for bringing the legal representatives
on record, should be rejected unless sufficient cause is shown for
condonation of delay. The larger benches as well as equi-benches of
this Court have consistently followed these principles and have
either allowed or declined to condone the delay in filing such
applications. Thus, it is the requirement of law that these
applications cannot be allowed as a matter of right and even in a
routine manner. An applicant must essentially satisfy the above
stated ingredients; then alone the Court would be inclined to
condone the delay in the filing of such applications."
In such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to condone the
delay of 1535 days in filing the appeal and hence, the application is
dismissed in the absence of any sufficient cause having been made out and
also on account of the inordinate delay.
Resultantly, the main appeal also stands dismissed.
August 26, 2021 (G.S. SANDHAWALIA)
vinod* JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
3 of 3
