Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 13 (HP)

Talbe Ram v. Pritu Devi

2015-01-02

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2015
Judgment Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. FAO No. 455 of 2007 This appeal is directed against the award, dated 30th March, 2007, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in Claim Petition No. 15/2006, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,02,000/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization, came to be awarded in favour of the claimant-appellant, herein and against the insured-owner-respondent No. 1, herein (for short, the “impugned award”). CMP (M) No. 1602 of 2014 2. The insured-owner has filed this limitation petition for condoning the delay of 7 years, 4 months and 6 days, which has crept-in, in filing the appeal, against the impugned award. 3. Before I deal with the main appeal, i.e. FAO No. 455 of 2007, I deem it proper to deal with the limitation petition. 4. In this limitation petition, it is averred that the impugned award is wrong to the extent of saddling the owner-insured with the liability. The liability was to be fastened upon the insurer-National Insurance Company, as the owner-insured has not committed any breach. 5. The applicant-insured-owner has not mentioned any ground for condoning the delay, right from the date of the impugned award, i.e. 30th March, 2007, till filing of the petition, i.e. 13th November, 2014, which has crept-in, in filing the appeal. 6. It came up for consideration before this Court on 21st November, 2014. After noticing the considerable delay, i.e. 7 years, 4 months and 6 days, which has crept-in, in filing the appeal, notices were issued to the respondents. 7. Respondent No.1-insurer has contested the petition by filing objections, but respondent No. 2 & 3, i.e. the driver and the claimant, respectively, have not filed any objection. 8. In terms of the mandate of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, hereinafter referred to as “the Act”, an appeal is to be filed within ninety days from the date of the award passed by a Claims Tribunal, It is apt to reproduce Section 173 of the Act herein: “173 Appeals.- (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) any person aggrieved by an award of a Claims Tribunal may, within ninety days from the date of the award, prefer an appeal to the High Court.” 9. The owner was contesting the claim petition and was represented by Mr. O.P. Thakur, Advocate, before the Tribunal. She has not chosen to question the impugned award till the appeal was filed by the claimant i.e. on 13.11.2007. Shri Vivek Singh Thakur, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the owner-insured before this Court on 04.04.2008. Till 21st November, 2014, the owner did not question the impugned award. She has also not mentioned any ground for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. Thus, the limitation petition merits to be dismissed in limini. 10. The applicant has to explain satisfactorily the each day’s delay, which she has failed to do. Thus, the applicant/owner is caught by laches and delay. Hence, the petition merits to be dismissed. 11. The Apex Court in Balwant Singh (dead) v. Jagdish Singh & Ors., AIR 2010 SC 3043 , held that the applications for condonation of delay cannot be allowed as a matter of right and in a routine manner. It is apt to reproduce paragraph 16 of the said decision hereunder: “16. Above are the principles which should control the exercise of judicial discretion vested in the Court under these provisions. The explained delay should be clearly understood in contradistinction to inordinate unexplained delay. Delay is just one of the ingredients which has to be considered by the Court. In addition to this, the Court must also take into account the conduct of the parties, bona fide reasons for condonation of delay and whether such delay could easily be avoided by the applicant acting with normal care and caution. The statutory provisions mandate that applications for condonation of delay and applications belatedly filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation for bringing the legal representatives on record, should be rejected unless sufficient cause is shown for condonation of delay. The larger benches as well as equi-benches of this Court have consistently followed these principles and have either allowed or declined to condone the delay in filing such applications. Thus, it is the requirement of law that these applications cannot be allowed as a matter of right and even in a routine manner. An applicant must essentially satisfy the above stated ingredients; then alone the Court would be inclined to condone the delay in the filing of such applications.” 12. The Apex Court in Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors Vs. An applicant must essentially satisfy the above stated ingredients; then alone the Court would be inclined to condone the delay in the filing of such applications.” 12. The Apex Court in Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors Vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr., AIR 2012 SC 1506 , Union of India & Ors. V. Nripen Sharma, AIR 2011 SC 1237 , and Perumon Bhagvathy Devaswom, Perinady Village Vs. Bhargavi Amma (dead) by LRS & ORS, (2008) AIR SCW 6025, has also laid down the same principle. This Court, while considering all the judgments of the Apex Court, supra, has also dismissed CMP (M) 1097 of 2014, titled as H.P. State Electricity Board Ltd. and Anr. versus Baldev Verma, vide judgment dated 18th September, 2014. 13. Keeping in view the aim and object of granting compensation and the mandate of Section 166 of the Act read with the mandate of Chapter XII of the said Act, claim petitions are required to be disposed of, as early as possible. 14. Further, while going through the title clause of the limitation petition, it appears that the claimant, the driver and the owner are the members of one family. 15. Having said so, no case of condonation of delay is made out. Accordingly, the limitation petition is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed as time barred. FAO No. 455 of 2007 16. The claimant has filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation with the prayer that the insurer be saddled with the liability. 17. The limitation petition stands dismissed. Thus, the appeal, so far as, it relates to saddling the insurer with the liability, also merits to be dismissed. 18. I have gone through the claim petition and the record. It appears that the claimant-appellant, the driver and the owner-insured of the offending vehicle, are the members of one family. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case read with the evidence, the Tribunal has rightly held that the owner-insured has committed breach and directed her to satisfy the award amount and exonerated the insurer. 19. The Tribunal, after examining the pleadings and the evidence, has rightly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case read with the evidence, the Tribunal has rightly held that the owner-insured has committed breach and directed her to satisfy the award amount and exonerated the insurer. 19. The Tribunal, after examining the pleadings and the evidence, has rightly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs. 2,000/- per month and applied the multiplier of ‘16’, keeping in view the age of the deceased as 19 years, at the time of accident and awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,92,000/-, under the head ‘loss of dependency’ and Rs. 10,000/- under the head ‘funeral expenses’, total compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,02,000/- in favour of the claimant. 20. Having said so, the award amount is just and proper and cannot be said to be inadequate, in any way. 21. Viewed thus, the appeal merits to be dismissed, is dismissed as such. The impugned award is upheld. 22. Registry is directed to release the awarded amount, if deposited, in favour of the claimant, strictly as per the terms and conditions contained in the impugned award. 23. Send down the records after placing a copy of the judgment on the record.