Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 199 (JK)

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gh. Ali

2001-09-12

MUZAFFAR JAN

body2001
1. Application has been admitted praying condonation of delay of 370 days in filing the appeal against award passed by Motor Accident claims Tribunal, Kargil on 15.9.1997. The main ground taken in the petition is that Mr. Murtaza was appointed advocate to represent the petitioners at Kargil. But the learned advocate did not intimate about the information of passing of the award against the petitioners in time, due to which the petitioners could not acquire knowledge about the disposal of the petition in the year 1997. It was only when Shri H.S. Mehta the Investigator visited the Kargil that the petitioners acquire knowledge of the disposal of the petition in the year 1997. On these grounds the prayer is made for condonation of delay. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the file. 3. The only ground taken in the petition is that the counsel was negligent and did not inform petitioners about date of passing of the award in time, So the appeal date of passing of the award in time, so the appeal could not be filed within the period of limitation. The pleas of the negligence of lawyer in the facts and circumstances of the present case is not impressive. 4. It is an admitted position that an Advocate is neither an agent, nor employee of the cleint who engages the Advocate for representation in any litigation. In the instant case period of 370 days is prayed to be condoned. It does not appeal to reason that the officers of the petitioners Company did not bother during these 370 days, to enquire about the progress of the claim even on telephone which facility is not only available but efficiently functional round the year in Kargil. If the officers of the Insurance Company have been negligent which in the present case, I held they are, they cannot attribute their negligence and throw it on the face of the Advocate and pray for condonation of delay. The petitioner has not bothered to mention the exact date when the knowledge of the decision of the claims petition was acquired or the date when the surveyor visited Kargil to give an impression of the date of acquiring knowledge. In these circumstances the petitioner cannot be allowed to take advantage of his incompetence and negligence. 5. The petitioner has not bothered to mention the exact date when the knowledge of the decision of the claims petition was acquired or the date when the surveyor visited Kargil to give an impression of the date of acquiring knowledge. In these circumstances the petitioner cannot be allowed to take advantage of his incompetence and negligence. 5. The law covering principles of condonation have settled in AIR 1998 SC 2276, the relevant portion is reproduced as under:- "5. This can hardly be said to be reasonable satisfactory or even a proper. Explanation for seeking condonation of delay. In the reply filed to the application seeking condonation of delay the appellant in the High court, it is asserted that after the judgment and decree was pronounced by the learned Sub Judge, Kolam on 30-10-1993, the scope for filing of the appeal was examined by the District Government Pleader, Special Law Officer Law Secretary and the Advocate General and in accordance with their opinion, it was decided that there was no scope for filling the appeal but later on, despite the opinion referred to above, The appeal was filed as late as on 18-1-1996 without disclosing why it was being filed. The High court does not appear to have examined the reply filed by the appellant as reference to the same is conspicuous by its absence from the order. We are not satisfied that in the facts and circumstances of this case, any explanation, much less reasonable or satisfactory one had been offered by the respondent state for condonation of the inordinate delay of 565 days. 6. Law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribed and the courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. The discretions exercise by the High court was thus neither proper nor judicious. The order condoning the delay cannot be sustained. 6. Since it has been held that equities cannot be applied when the delay is deliberate and is not substantially explained, the prayer made in the present petition cannot be allowed. The application for condonation of delay for reasons given above is not allowed. I am aware that distribution of public money is involved in the present claim petition and some one high up in the office of the petitioner has been negligent. The application for condonation of delay for reasons given above is not allowed. I am aware that distribution of public money is involved in the present claim petition and some one high up in the office of the petitioner has been negligent. Let copy of this judgment be sent to Regional Manager, Chandigarh to identify the person who has been negligent and take appropriate action as permissible.