New India Assurance Company Limited, Pali v. Jetha Ram
2003-01-29
N.P.GUPTA
body2003
DigiLaw.ai
JUDGMENT 1. - The registry has reported the appeal to be barred by 8 days. A 1 perusal of the application filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act shows that the main ground of delay disclosed is that the concerned officer in the Divisional Office, Ajmer was on leave for nearly one month, and that is why the delay occurred in Divisional Office at Ajmer. Suffice it to say that this can hardly be countenanced as sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. Additionally, I looked into the merits also, and the only ground of defence, which is intended to be canvassed here in appeal is that the victim were unauthorised passengers in private vehicle, as they were travelling in a to jeep as passengers for hire or reward, whose risk is not covered by any policy. Perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the learned Tribunal in para has gone into this question in details and has found that there is no evidence, has gone the name to show that the jeep was being used for carrying passengers for hire or reward, inasmuch as, evidence of NAW/1 does not show that any hire or reward was received torn the passengers while NAW/2, Madan Lal has deposed that he was carrying the friends, and relatives of registered owner,- Raja Ram to Jodhpur, and did not charge any hire or reward. Even, AW 2, Chandra Devi, a passenger in the jeep has denied to pay any hire or reward for travelling in the jeep. She has also denied the suggestion about the other passengers having paid hire or reward for the travelling in the jeep. in that view of the matter, the learned trial Court concluded that it is not established that the vehicle was being used at the time of accident for carrying passengers for hire or reward. Even prima facie, no infirmity has been shown by learned counsel for the appellant in these findings. 3. In that view of the matter, even on equitable considerations, I am not inclined to condone the delay. 4. The application filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act is, therefore, dismissed, and consequently, the appeal is also dismissed as time barred.Appeal Dismissed. *******