Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2679 (ALL)

Ram Prakash v. Sushma Devi

2014-09-01

RITU RAJ AWASTHI

body2014
JUDGMENT Ritu Raj Awasthi, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for appellants and gone through the records. 2. This First Appeal From Order has been filed against the impugned award dated 6.10.2012 and judgment dated 3.10.2012, passed in MACP No. 1 of 2006; Smt. Sushma Devi Vs. Ram Prakash and another, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,18,000/- along with 7 per cent per annum simple interest from the date of institution of claim till actual payment is made has been awarded in favour of the claimants and against the appellants. 3. The instant appeal has been filed with a reported delay of 602 days on 26.08.2014. 4. Learned counsel for appellant submits that he has moved an application for condonation of delay along with an affidavit explaining the reasons for delay in filing of the appeal. As per the said affidavit delay in filing of appeal has been caused for the reason that the counsel who was engaged by the appellants to contest the case on their behalf before learned Tribunal did not give information of the pronouncement of the impugned award and, as such, the appellants could not know about it unless recovery notice was received by them in the last week of June, 2014. It is also stated in the affidavit that the appellants are very poor persons and their financial condition is very bad and, as such, further delay has been caused as they could not arrange necessary money to file the instant appeal. 5. It is to be noted that the appellants were party i.e. respondents before learned Tribunal. They had filed their written statements and contested the matter. Learned counsel for appellant informs that the written statements on behalf of appellants were filed in the year 2009. The impugned award was pronounced by learned Tribunal on 3rd October, 2012. It appears that the appellants were not vigilant about the case filed against them and did not take care to file the appeal within the time prescribed under the Statute. As per affidavit filed in support of application for condonation of delay the appellants came to know about the impugned judgment and award only after receiving the recovery notice. It appears that the appellants were not vigilant about the case filed against them and did not take care to file the appeal within the time prescribed under the Statute. As per affidavit filed in support of application for condonation of delay the appellants came to know about the impugned judgment and award only after receiving the recovery notice. Even in case counsel for appellants who was contesting the case on their behalf before learned Tribunal did not inform the appellants, it was the duty of the appellants to have found out the outcome of claim filed against them particularly when they had filed the written statements and had contested the matter before learned Tribunal. It is not understandable as to why the appellants kept silent for such a long time and had not made any effort to find out the fate of the claim filed against them. No explanation has been given about the reasons for not contacting their counsel in this regard. 6. It has been seen by the Court that in most of cases relating to motor accident claims the owner-driver do not challenge the award made against them unless and until recovery proceedings are initiated against them and notices are received by them. The ground that their counsel (respondents before learned Tribunal) has not informed about the impugned award, is the ground which is taken normally in most of such cases having been filed with delay. The delay caused in filing of case needs to be explained on day to day basis. No such explanation has come forward in the instant appeal. The alleged accident has taken place on 3.10.2005 in which the deceased Ram Lotan had died on spot due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. 7. Learned counsel for appellant tried to submit that the offending vehicle was duly insured and the appellant-driver was having valid driving licence, however, learned Tribunal has not properly considered the aforesaid issues. Needless to observe that the appellants had sufficient opportunity before learned Tribunal to have contest the matter and raise the pleas in this regard. In case the appellants did not contest the matter properly the appellants themselves are to be blamed. 8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India and others Vs. Needless to observe that the appellants had sufficient opportunity before learned Tribunal to have contest the matter and raise the pleas in this regard. In case the appellants did not contest the matter properly the appellants themselves are to be blamed. 8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India and others Vs. Tarsem Singh, : (2008) 8 SCC 648 after relying on the earlier judgment passed in the case of Shivdas Vs. Union of India (2007) 9 SCC 274 , has held as under: - "The High Court does not ordinarily permit a belated resort to the extraordinary remedy because it is likely to cause confusion and public inconvenience and bring in its train new injustice, and if writ jurisdiction is exercised after unreasonable delay, it may have the effect of inflicting not only hardship and inconvenience but also injustice on third parties. "(See. Naresh Kumar Vs. Department of Atomic Energy and Others, : JT 2010 (7) SC 77). 9. In the case of Kanaiyalal Lal Chand Sachdev and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others : (2011) 2 SCC 782 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down certain guidelines for the purpose of considering the delay in filing of the case. Relevant paragraph no. 24 on reproduction reads as under: - Para-24- "In City and Industrial Development Corporation v. Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala and Ors. : (2009) 1 SCC 168 , this Court had observed that: The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 is duty-bound to consider whether: - (a) adjudication of writ petition involves any complex and disputed questions of facts and whether they can be satisfactorily resolved; (b) the petition reveals all material facts; (c) the Petitioner has any alternative or effective remedy for the resolution of the dispute; (d) person invoking the jurisdiction is guilty of unexplained delay and laches; (e) ex facie barred by any laws of limitation; (f) grant of relief is against public policy or barred by any valid law; and host of other factor." 10. It is also to be noted that even after coming to know about the impugned judgment and award the appellants have not approached the court expeditiously and the instant appeal has been filed after more than two months from the alleged date of knowledge of the impugned judgment and award. It is also to be noted that even after coming to know about the impugned judgment and award the appellants have not approached the court expeditiously and the instant appeal has been filed after more than two months from the alleged date of knowledge of the impugned judgment and award. The appellants have also not disclosed as to when they were not having sufficient funds to approach the court earlier then how they have managed to file the appeal now. 11. After hearing learned counsel for appellants and going through the records, I do not find any good and sufficient ground for condoning the delay in filing the present appeal. The reasons given by the appellants are not sufficient for condonation of delay. The application for condonation of delay, as such, is rejected. 12. In result, the appeal having been filed with inordinate delay of 602 days as on 26.08.2014 deserves to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. 13. The judgment and award dated 3.10.2012 is hereby confirmed. The appellants shall comply the impugned judgment and award and pay the amount of compensation to the claimants as directed by the learned Tribunal. 14. The statutory amount deposited at the time of filing of the appeal shall be remitted to the learned Tribunal forthwith, for that purpose.