Tripura High Court
Sri Chandan Kumar Sureka vs Smt. Iti Rani Saha & Ors on 30 July, 2024
Page 1 of 3
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
I. A. No.1 of 2024
in MAC App. No.43 of 2024
Sri Chandan Kumar Sureka
-----Applicant(s)
Versus
Smt. Iti Rani Saha & Ors.
-----Respondent(s)
For Applicant(s) : Mr. Dipak Deb, Adv,
Mr. D. Debnath, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. H. K. Bhowmik, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
Order
30/07/2024
Learned Counsel for both the parties are present.
Yesterday heard both the sides at length.
The present applicant-appellant has preferred an appeal
under Section 173 of M.V. Act challenging the judgment and
award dated 23.05.2023 delivered by Learned MAC Tribunal,
Court No.4 in connection with case No.TS(MAC) No.138 of 2017
and along with the memo of appeal, the present I.A. was filed for
condoning delay of 248 days in preferring the appeal.
The respondent-claimant appeared on receipt of notice and
filed objection denying the assertions of the appellant-applicant in
the application and submitted that the conduct of the applicant-
appellant before the Tribunal was totally unfair and as such, this
petition is not maintainable and prayed for dismissal of the same
with costs.
It was further submitted that this appeal is nothing but to
delay the process of execution of the judgment and award
delivered by the Learned Tribunal below.
In course of hearing, Learned Counsel for the appellant-
applicant submitted that the present appellant-applicant being the
owner of the offending vehicle appeared and contested the same
before the Tribunal by filing written statement but he failed to
adduce any evidence in support of his defence and sought time
which was not considered by the Learned Tribunal below.
More so, there was a communication gap in between him
and his counsel, so, he could not appear before the Tribunal with
witness and could produce and prove documents and further the
appellant-applicant had no intention to cause delay. Hence, he
prayed for allowing this application of condonation for the sake of
justice and to admit the appeal.
On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the claimant-
respondents first of all drawn the attention of this Court that the
appellant-applicant before the Tribunal below, on different times
gave different addresses for which notice could not be served in
time and before the Tribunal, inspite of allowing opportunity, he
was reluctant to adduce any evidence. Even in the written
statement, nothing was submitted by him that the vehicle was
duly insured or not. Learned Counsel further submitted that the
affidavit has been sweared by one advocate's clerk which is not at
all acceptable and also not permitted by law and finally, Learned
Counsel submitted that this appeal is nothing but to avoid the
payment of compensation by the present appellant-applicant to
the poor claimant-respondents and urged for dismissal of the
petition.
Heard both the sides at length and perused the record.
It appears that before the Tribunal inspite of allowing the
opportunity, the present appellant-applicant failed to produce any
document showing that on the alleged day of offence, he had got
valid insurance coverage of the offending vehicle. In course of
hearing, Learned Counsel for the appellant-applicant also could
not satisfy the Court as to whether he has got any valid insurance
coverage or not so as to adjudicate the present matter.
Moreso, the affidavit of the appellant-applicant has been
sweared by one advocate's clerk which cannot be legally accepted
and the grounds set forth in the applicant are also not at all
trustworthy and satisfactory.
In view of the above, I do not find any scope to allow the
application for condoning delay of 248 days in preferring the
appeal. Hence, the application for condoning delay stands rejected
being devoid of merit.
JUDGE
MOUMITA Digitally signed by
MOUMITA DATTA
DATTA Date: 2024.07.30 17:28:12
-07'00'
Deepshikha
