Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 224 (JK)

Gh. Qadir Mir v. Union Of India

2003-07-31

SYED BASHIR-UD-DIN

body2003
MACT, Srinagar in claim petition No. 52/95 allowed the claim in the sum of Rs. 2, 27, 000/- with 9% interest from the date of application till realization against the applicant before this Court and respondent before MACT, in respect of vehicular accident that took place on 30. 7.1995, when respondent No. 3 was on the steering of the CRPF vehicle bearing registration No. DL-JL-1724. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunals order dated 9.9.2002 shows that respondents have Participated in the proceedings. The claim is contested. Written statement is filed and issues are raised. Parties have led evidence and examined witness. The award was pronounced in presence of the counsel for the parties. Against this award of the MACT, respondent has filed CIMA on 3.4.2003, alongwith an application for condonation of delay of 100 days in filing the appeal. 2. The ground set out in the application seeking condonation of delay and as also focused on during submissions is that the matter had to be examined by legal cell of Ministry of Home Affairs which took some time. Besides the officials of Defence service could not move frequently in the present disturbed conditions of the State and particular in Valley so as to follow the case regularly. Besides the order is bad in law and to do justice it is necessary to condone the delay and examine the main matter on merits. 3. Objections have been filed by the other side and the sufficiency of cause for condonation of delay is contested. It is stated that no specific reason or grounds have been given to explain the delay. Whatever is stated and placed before the court is so stated vaguely. It does not commend to reason that if the people of Defence service could not move to pursue the case regularly, who else could pursue the case regularly. The mince of the meat is that the matter including appeals and applications under Service Laws are being followed regularly in courts. Heard. Examined. 4. There is no doubt that courts have taken liberal view to advance cause of justice and usually look to the merits of the case to do justice between the parties, even while dealing with condonation matter. Even so, the pertinent question is that reasons have to be given and sufficiency of cause made out to justify extension of time in filing the appeal beyond prescribed period. Even so, the pertinent question is that reasons have to be given and sufficiency of cause made out to justify extension of time in filing the appeal beyond prescribed period. Condonation cannot be ordered on just askance for. 5. On the date when decision was pronounced by Claims Tribunal on 9.9.02 the applicants counsel, respondent before Tribunal Mr. Gh. Murtaza was present. The certified copy of the award with application in appeal shows that copy has been obtained on 27.09.02, within 18 days of the award. The contention/ground taken that the copy of the judgment/order was sent to Home Ministry for examination by legal cell of the Ministry for accord of permission to file appeal consumed much time, appears not based on facts. The Photostat Copy of the memo produced by applicants counsel shows that the advice of Ministry of Home Affairs has been given on 4.12.2002 and the under Secretary to PF-III Desk of Ministry of Home has while observing inadvisability to go against the appeal in claim matter, requested the Ministry of law for according permission to file appeal for the reason that the accident has happened due to mechanical fault. This matter has been dealt with in the Ministry by Department of legal Affairs on 11.12.2002 and in the background that normally the appellate court may not interfere with MACT award, it is recommended, "however, if the department feel aggrieved with the impugned award dated 9.9.02, they may take a chance for filing an appeal." This is only to show that in the context the HOM and the legal cell, is not certain about the merits of the case and the Ministry has taken just one weeks time to examine the matter. In the application it is not specified as to how much period was taken by the Ministry to examine the matter and return the file with direction (s) to concerned. Obviously it is a very vague and week ground. The contention that the accident is because of mechanical failure is on examination of perusal of evidence lead by the parties negated by the Tribunal only to hold that the accident has been due to reasons beyond control of the driver. In fact Tribunal has not found any evidence to show that any mechanical failure is responsible for the accident in question. In fact Tribunal has not found any evidence to show that any mechanical failure is responsible for the accident in question. It is found that the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by respondent No. 3. Seen thus it cannot be said in this case, that by not examining the decision, the cause of substantial justice suffers at the altar of technical consideration. 6. The other ground put-forth is that in the prevailing condition in the State and generally in the valley the defence people are hampered regularly to follow their case is also not true. The application of petitioner indicated that the counsel was regularly following the case. They have also tendered evidence and examined the witnesses. No case is made out of any prejudice before the Tribunal. Even certified copy is obtained within a month. If no barrier is felt to pursue the matter regularly before the Tribunal, then no reason not to follow/pursue it before the High Court. This ground appears to have been put-forth just to give some weight to sought condonation of delay, notwithstanding the merits of the contention so put-forth. While conceding the fact that no step motherly treatment is to be accorded when the Central Govt. or State Govt. is the applicant and that margin is to be given on account of working of an impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology, yet it cannot be said that the court is not to consider the question of sufficiency of cause made out and the weight to be given to reasons advanced and explanation on the subject. In this case there is no explanation advanced or reasons given as to why the appeal was not filed even when the department and the Central Govt. gave the clearance for filing appeal on 15th December, 2002. As to why appeal was not filed even thereafter for about 3 and half months, there is no explanation whatsoever. The attempt vaguely made to fill up the lacuna and give some sort of reason, is not indicative of due care and caution on the part of the respondents. The occurred delay cannot be said to be for reasons beyond control of the applicant or in good faith. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the explanation furnished would hardly constitute sufficient cause. The occurred delay cannot be said to be for reasons beyond control of the applicant or in good faith. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the explanation furnished would hardly constitute sufficient cause. There are no reasons and explanation to answer the description of sufficient cause. It hardly needs to be mentioned that even without being dogmatic about pedantic hyper technical view of the matter. One cannot ignore the fact that by not taking steps within prescribed time valuable right has accrued to the other party which cannot be taken to routine and defeated by condoning delay. Dismissed.