Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Leela Bai
2023 Latest Caselaw 5177 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 32/2023

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. through Branch Manager, Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., E-8 E.P.I.P. RIICO, Sitapura, Jaipur (302017) (Insurer of Vehicle Loading Tempo No. RJ-09-GA-3467)

----Appellant Versus

1. Smt. Leela Bai W/o Udai Lal Ji B/c Prajapat (Kumhar) occupation House Wife aged 26 years R/o Ghantiyawali Tehsil and District Chittorgarh (Raj.)

2. Mangi Lal S/o Bardi Chand B/c Prajapat (Kumhar) occupation labour aged 50 years R/o Ghantiyawali Tehsil and District Chittorgarh (Raj.)

3. Nani Bai W/o Mangi Lal Ji B/c Prajapat (Kumhar) occupation House Wife aged about 47 years R/o Ghantiyawali Tehsil and District Chittorgarh (Raj.)

4. Laxminarayan S/o Nand Ram Ji Prajapat aged adult R/o Prajapat Market, Chittorgarh Tehsil and District Chittorgarh (Raj.) (Vehicle Owner Loading Tempo No. RJ-09-GA-346)

5. Mukesh S/o Bagtu Ram Ji Harijan aged adult R/o near F.C.I. Godam, Marwar Junction District Pali (Raj.) (Vehicle Driver Loading Tempo No. RJ-09-GA-346)

----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vishal Singhal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manish Pitaliya

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

24/05/2023

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment

and award dated 02.12.2021 passed by the Motor Accidents

Claims Tribunal, Chittorgarh (Raj.) in M.A.C. Case No.541/2012.

2. The appeal has been preferred with a delay of 188 days and

the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been

moved for condonation of delay in filing the said appeal.

(2 of 4) [CMA-32/2023]

3. A perusal of the said application shows that not a single

ground which can be termed to be sufficient or reasonable so as to

explain the delay caused in filing the present appeal, has been

averred.

4. Not a single date as to when the copy of the award was

received, when the sanction to file the appeal was granted and

when the same was prepared has been mentioned in the

application. Only a vague averment that the delay has been

caused for reasons beyond the control of the appellant has been

made.

5. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Basawaraj & Ors.

Vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81

held as under:-

"15. The law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as to what was the "sufficient cause" which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bonafide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by this Court in regard to the condonation of delay. In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court on time condoning the delay without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the legislature."

(3 of 4) [CMA-32/2023]

6. In the specific opinion of this Court, in terms of the ratio laid

down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the reason pleaded by the

appellant cannot be termed to be a ground reasonable or sufficient

so as to condone the delay caused in filing the present appeal.

7. Moreover, it is admitted that the award amount has already

been deposited by the insurance company with the Tribunal in the

execution proceedings initiated by the claimants.

8. Even on merits, only two grounds have been raised by the

appellant: Firstly, the driver involved in the accident had been

acquitted by the criminal court and therefore, he cannot be

termed to be negligent. Secondly, the cheque given by the owner

of the vehicle qua the premium of the insurance policy had been

dishonoured and therefore, the insurance company cannot be held

to be liable.

9. So far as the above two grounds are concerned, it is the

settled proposition of law that the findings in a criminal proceeding

cannot bind the civil proceedings and further, as specifically found

by the Tribunal, the driver was acquitted giving him the benefit of

doubt and it was not an onerous acquittal. So far as the cheque

being dishonoured is concerned, it is the specific finding of the

Tribunal that no evidence qua the said pleading had been led by

the insurance company. Although NAW-1 'Sikander Ali', the officer

of the insurance company, had appeared in the witness box but he

also did not depose anything regarding the breach of the policy on

account of the dishonour of the cheque.

10. In view of the specific findings of the Tribunal and nothing

being available on record contrary to the same, this Court is not

inclined to interfere with the judgment impugned even on merits.

(4 of 4) [CMA-32/2023]

11. The present appeal is, therefore, dismissed being time

barred as well as being devoid of merits.

12. The stay petition as well as all the pending applications also

stand dismissed.

(REKHA BORANA),J 33-KashishS/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)