Uttarakhand High Court
AO/148/2019 on 8 August, 2023
Office Notes, reports,
SL. orders or proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No directions and Registrar's
order with Signatures
A.O. No. 148 of 2019
Hon'ble Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.
Mr. Zafar Siddiqui, for the appellant through
Video Conferencing.
2. Mr. Bharat Tewari, counsel for respondent no.1.
3. Mr. Vinay Bhatt, counsel for respondent no.2.
4. Present appeal has been preferred under Section
173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 against the
judgment and order dated 24.08.2013 passed by Motor
Accident Claim Tribunal/Additional District Judge,
Haldwani in M.A.C. Case No. 179 of 2007, whereby
the compensation of Rs. 1,41,800/- has been awarded
to the claimants/appellants.
5. Along with the appeal, the delay condonation
application (CLMA 4664 of 2019) has been filed with
supporting affidavit of the appellant/Mohd. Nazim.
6. The delay condonation application reflects the
delay of 5 years 35 days in filing the present appeal.
7. Counsel for the appellant would submit that
against the impugned judgment and award dated
24.08.2023, the appellant has filed a review petition
before the MACT/1st Additional District Judge,
Haldwani on 30.11.2018, which was dismissed on
15.03.2019. He would further submit that due to lack
of knowledge and loss of business, the appellant had no
money to approach the Court; that, earlier the
appellant/applicant was suffering from psychosis;
therefore, the appeal could not be filed by the appellant
within limitation.
8. Per contra, counsel appearing for the
respondents vehemently opposed the delay
condonation application and would submit that the
filing of a suit or application within the limitation is the
Rule; that, if the appellant is not satisfied with the
award, he should have filed an appeal within the time
limit prescribed under the law; that, no sufficient cause
has been shown by the appellant/applicant for
condonation of delay, therefore, the delay could not be
condoned. He would further submit that there is 1962
days long delay, therefore, the same cannot to be
condoned in a routine manner in the absence of any
acceptable reason. He would further argue that the
application for condonation of delay has been made on
the ground of fabricated and concocted story; that there
is no medical report of appellant/applicant to in
capacitate him from filing the appeal within time. He
further argued that the present application is frivolous
and vexatious wasting the valuable time of Court.
9. This Court is of the considered view that a
person, who is not vigilant, is not entitled for the relief
after a prolonged period and condoning the long delay
in the absence of sufficient reason would cause
prejudice to the other parties. Without going into the
merits of the case, in the opinion of this Court, the
cause stated in the application for condonation of delay
is not sufficient. Even there is no medical certificate of
any medical disease of the appellant/applicant.
10. In view of the fact that the appellant/applicant
could not establish any sufficient cause and reason for
condoning the long delay of 1962 days, this Court is
not inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal,
thus, the delay condonation application is dismissed
with the cost of Rs.5000/- to be deposited by the
appellant in the account of the High Court Legal
Services Committee within a period of two weeks from
today.
11. Consequently, the appeal is hereby dismissed.
(Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.)
08.08.2023
Mamta
