Dharamveer Singh And Another vs The Oriental Insurance Company ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 2903 P&H

FAO-1456-2021(O&M)                          -1-

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                    CHANDIGARH

                                FAO-1456-2021(O&M)
                                Date of decision:-6.10.2021


Dharamveer Singh and another

                                                               ...Appellants
                  Versus

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and another
                                                              ...Respondents



CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S.MADAAN

Present:    Mr.Sunil Kumar Bhardwaj, Advocate
            for the applicant/appellant.


                         ****

H.S. MADAAN, J.

Petitioner/claimant Vijay @ Foji had brought a claim petition

under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against Subhash

Gautam - driver, Dharamveer Singh - owner and Oriental Insurance

Company Ltd. - insurer of the truck bearing registration No.HR69A-5494

(hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle), claiming compensation

on account of suffering injuries in the motor vehicular accident, which

took place on 27.4.2013 at about 7:00 p.m. in the area of Sarbhangi

Chowk, Sohna, Tauru Road at Sohna statedly on account of rash and

negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent No.1.

Notice of the claim petition bearing MACP Case No.37 of

2013 was given to respondents, who put in appearance and contested the

1 of 4

FAO-1456-2021(O&M) -2-

claim petition. However, vide Award dated 2.3.2015, the said claim

petition was accepted and compensation of Rs.1,68,200/- with interest @

6% per annum from the institution of the petition till payment, from

respondents No.1 and 2 was awarded to the petitioner/claimant with a

direction that respondent No.3 - insurance company would satisfy the

award and then could get recover the said amount from respondent No.2

for the reason that the terms and conditions of the insurance policy had

been violated.

Respondents No.1 and 2 aggrieved by the said award have

approached this Court by way of filing the present appeal. The appeal has

been filed belatedly by 1749 days and an application bearing CM

No.9924-CII of 2021 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with

Section 151 CPC for condonation of such delay has been filed contending

that the appeal could not be filed within period of limitation since the

present applicant/appellants came to know about the recovery rights

granted to insurance company quite belatedly when execution application

was filed before the Tribunal in the year 2020 i.e. after a gap of five years.

As such, the delay in filing the appeal was not intentional or wilful.

Therefore, the same be condoned.

I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant/appellants

besides going through the record.

The purpose of enacting Limitation Act was to specify the

period during which an aggrieved person could seek his remedy by

approaching the Court of law. The purpose of such enactment was to

ensure that an aggrieved person approaches the Court at the earliest and

2 of 4

FAO-1456-2021(O&M) -3-

does not sleep over his rights for a long time and damoclean sword of

litigation should not hang over heads of the opposite party.

Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963 deals with Bar of

Limitation providing that every suit instituted, appeal preferred, and

application made after the prescribed period shall be dismissed although

limitation has not been set up as a defence.

Section 5 of that very act provides that any appeal or any

application may be admitted after the prescribed period if the applicant

satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal

or making the application within such period.

Here I do not see any justifiable reason to condone such huge

delay of more than five years in filing of the appeal. The

applicant/appellants, who are respondents No.1 and 2 before the Tribunal

were duly represented by counsel Sh.S.K. Yadav, Advocate, who had

contested the case on behalf of such respondents. Therefore, it is not open

to the applicant/appellants that they were not aware of the award. It does

not sound convincing that such applicant/appellants were ignorant of the

award especially with regard to the recovery rights granted to the

insurance company. No cogent and convincing reason has been given in

the application, which might have spurred this Court to condone huge

delay in filing of the appeal.

It may be noticed that the amount of compensation awarded

to the claimant in this case is not very high. Therefore, it cannot be said by

the applicant/appellants that they would be greatly affected financially in

case the award remains as such.

                                     3 of 4

 FAO-1456-2021(O&M)                           -4-

As regards the judgment i.e. Mohinder Singh Versus

Lakhwinder Kaur and others, 2016(2) PLR 165 by a Single Judge of this

Court referred to by learned counsel for the applicant/appellants, wherein

delay of 1933 days in filing of the appeal had been condoned, that

judgments is not helpful tot he applicant/appellants due to different facts

and circumstances and the context in which such observations had been

made.

There is absolutely no reason to condone such huge delay in

filing of the appeal. Therefore, the application bearing CM No.9924-CII

of 2021 seeking condonation of delay stands dismissed. Consequently, the

appeal, which is time barred is also dismissed.

6.10.2021                                          (H.S.MADAAN)
Brij                                                   JUDGE

Whether reasoned/speaking :             Yes/No

Whether reportable              :       Yes/No




                                    4 of 4