Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 222 (RAJ)

Sooko Bai v. Kayum Khan

2012-01-25

MAHESH BHAGWATI

body2012
Hon'ble BHAGWATI, J.— Application No.8852/16.3.2011 Service is found to have been complete on all the respondents. 2. The appeal is found to have been filed after 1067 days of the expiry of period of limitation. None is present for the parties nor the parties are present. 3. Having perused the contents of the application as also the award passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karauli, it is found that the Tribunal decreed an amount of Rs.3,61,000/- in favour of the applicant-claimants and against the respondent No.1 & 2. It is also revealed that the claim petition was dismissed and no liability was fastened on respondent No.3-National Insurance Co.Ltd. From perusal of the application, it is also not revealed, as to whether the respondent Nos.1 & 2 filed an appeal against the impugned award dated 14th January, 2008 in the High Court. The appellants were required to prefer an appeal within a period of 90 days of passing the award by the Tribunal. The appellants have come out with the case that they were directed by their counsel that they were not required to appear in the Court on each and every date of hearing and as and when their presence was required, they shall be informed accordingly. The appellants are found to have further submitted that the decision of the claim petition was not brought into their notice and that is the only reason that delay of 1067 days has occurred in filing the appeal, against the impugned award. The appellants are required to account for each and every day's delay in filing the appeal. It is found that instead of explaining each and every day's delay, the appellants have not assigned any cogent reason in filing the appeal after 1067 days of the expiry of period of limitation. The said delay of 1067 days is found to be unusual and inordinate on account of there being no cogent and satisfactory ground in filing the appeal after the aforesaid period of limitation, the application being bogus and irrelevant, deserves to be dismissed and the same stands dismissed accordingly. 4. Consequent upon the dismissal of the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the appeal also stands dismissed accordingly.