Prahlad vs Lacchu Singh And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 599 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

          S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1218/2013

Prahlad S/o Chaju, AGe- 35 years, R/o Village Thikariya, Tehsil
and District -Dausa
                                                                   ----Appellant
                                   Versus
1. Lacchu Singh S/o Jeetalal Gurjar, R/o Deoli, Tehsil- Malarna
Dungar, District Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan (Driver)
2. Hari Singh Meena S/o Gangaram Meena, R/o Peepalwada
nadi, Tehsil Bonli, District Sawaimadhopur (Owner)
3. National Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Dausa,
Through Branch Manager, Branch Office, Lalsot Road, Dausa.
(Insurance Company)
                                                                ----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ritesh Jain through VC For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

Order

24/01/2022 This appeal has been filed by claimant for enhancement of

compensation assailing the judgment dated 10.06.2010 passed by

MACT, Dausa in claim case No.358/2008 whereby compensation of

Rs. 49,400/- along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date

of filing of claim petition has been awarded in favour of claimants.

The appeal is barred by 896 days, therefore separate application

under Section of Limitation Act has also been filed.

Heard learned counsel for appellant on application under

Section 5 of Limitation Act as also on appeal.

Learned counsel for claimant submitted that claimant met

with an accident on 20.03.2008 wherein he sustained fracture of

(2 of 2) [CMA-1218/2013]

twelve Thoracic Vertebra. On filing claim petition under Section

166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 a compensation of Rs.49,400/-

has been awarded. Learned counsel for appellant submits that

appellant sustained 15% permanent disability and he was labourer

of 30 years. The Tribunal has not awarded just compensation.

Heard. Considered.

It has been stated by appellant that he was not aware about

law on limitation, therefore, he could not filed appeal within period

of limitation.

As far as delay is concerned, no plausible reason has been

mentioned to condone the delay of 896 days. A pertinent query

was raised from appellant as to after passing award dated

10.06.2010, when did he receive the compensation amount. No

satisfactory reply has been given to the query made by the Court.

The reason for delay shown by appellant is not justified and

reasonable. Otherwise also compensation awarded by the Tribunal

appears to be just compensation and this Court is not inclined to

entertain the appeal.

In such view of matter, there is no reason to condone the

delay in filing appeal and accordingly application under Section 5

of Limitation Act is dismissed. Consequentially, the appeal also

stands dismissed.

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

NITIN /35

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)