Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1008 (RAJ)

Laxman Singh v. Bhanwar Singh

2016-07-18

ARUN BHANSALI

body2016
JUDGMENT : Arun Bhansali, J. These appeals have been reported barred by limitation by 600 days. 2. The appeals have been filed by the appellants-Laxman Singh and Harendra Singh aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 8.7.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chittorgarh ('the Tribunal'), whereby the Tribunal by the impugned judgment has exonerated the Insurance Company from liability of making payment of amount of compensation on account of violation of policy condition/the liability of fare paying passenger being not covered in a third party insurance. 3. The application for compensation was filed by impeding the appellant No. 1 as owner of the vehicle UP-80-P-5875 and the appellant No. 2 as registered owner of the said vehicle. 4. Besides the above two appellants, one Saiyed Rahib S/o Shri Shoukat Ali was also impleaded as party to the application as power of attorney holder qua the offending vehicle. 5. Before the Tribunal, despite service by publication of notice under Order 5, Rule 20 C.P.C., the appellant No. 1 Laxman Singh did not appear, appellant No.2 : Harendra Singh was represented by the Counsel and Saiyad Rahib, the power of attorney holder was also represented by the Counsel before the Tribunal. 6. After the parties led evidence, the Tribunal passed the award qua various amounts in the three claim petitions, which were filed by the claimants against both the appellants as well as driver of the vehicle-Manjoj Sen. The application was rejected against the Insurance Company and Saiyad Rahib. 7. In the application seeking condonation of delay filed on behalf of both the appellants, which is supported by affidavit of Laxman Singh, it is indicated that the appellants being residents of District Bharatpur/Agra, the appellant No. 1 received the information of judgment on receiving the notice of appeal of the claimants as well as notice of execution, when he immediately contacted his Counsel at Chittorgarh and came to know about the judgment/award and exoneration of the Insurance Company and thereafter, the appeal has been filed with delay. 8. It is indicated that the delay occurred on account of non-communication of the judgment/ignorance of law and financial problem and the same was bona fide and not intentional. 9. A reply to the application seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the Insurance Company inter-alia opposing the same. 8. It is indicated that the delay occurred on account of non-communication of the judgment/ignorance of law and financial problem and the same was bona fide and not intentional. 9. A reply to the application seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the Insurance Company inter-alia opposing the same. It is inter-alia indicated in, the reply that no reply was filed on behalf of the appellants and the appeal has been filed after 2 years of exoneration of the Insurance Company without am cogent reason and therefore, the application deserves to be dismissed. 10. It is further submitted that respondent - Saiyad Rahib was power of attorney holder of appellant No. 1 and took delivery of the vehicle on 'Supurdginama' and therefore, it cannot be claimed that the appellant No. 1 was not aware of passing of the judgment as Saiyad Rahib, his power of attorney holder was duly represented before the Tribunal. 11. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellant No. 1, to has been shown as the owner of the vehicle, is the registered owner of the vehicle and Harendra Singh, who has been shown as registered owner of the vehicle is the insured of the offending vehicle and the award could not have been passed against both of them and therefore, as the appellants have got good prima facie case in their favour, the delay deserves to be condoned. 12. Learned Counsel for the respondents-claimants and the Insurance Company opposed the prayer of learned Counsel for the appellants. 13. I have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record along with the record of connected appeals filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation. 14. Admittedly, the appeals are barred by 600 days. As already noticed herein-before, the appeals have been filed by Laxman Singh as well as Harendra Singh, the reason indicated is that both of them were not aware for passing of the impugned award and came to know of the same when notices of the appeals filed by the claimants was served on them. 15. A perusal of the record of the appeals filed by the claimants indicate that appellant No. 2 Harendra Singh was served with the notice of the appeal on 7.1.2014 and appellant No. 1 Laxman Singh has not been served in those appeals so far. 15. A perusal of the record of the appeals filed by the claimants indicate that appellant No. 2 Harendra Singh was served with the notice of the appeal on 7.1.2014 and appellant No. 1 Laxman Singh has not been served in those appeals so far. Though subsequently, vakalatnama has been filed on behalf of Laxman Singh in the appeals filed by the claimants. 16. In view of the fact that appellant No. 2 Harendra Singh was served with the appeal filed by claimants way-back on 7.1.2014, the filing of appeal on 29.5.2015 by said Harendra Singh, on the alleged ground of not being aware of the judgment passed and getting to know of the judgment only on receipt of the appeal, cannot be condoned as even after receipt of the notice in appeal way-back, the appeal has been filed after delay of one year and four months. This is besides the fact that Harendra Singh was duly represented before the Tribunal. 17. So far as the appellants No. 1-Laxman Singh in concerned, the affidavit given by him indicating that he became aware of the award on service of the notices in the appeal filed by the claimants appears to be incorrect from the record as he has not at all been served in the appeal and therefore, the reason indicated in the application is on face incorrect and baseless. 18. Admittedly, the delivery of the offending vehicle after the same was seized on account of accident by the police was taken by Saiyad Rahib as power if attorney holder of appellant No. 1 Laxman Singh and said Saiyad Rahib was duly represented before the Tribunal and raised plea regarding his liability on which issue was framed and it was decided that the power of attorney holder is not liable. However, the fact remains that Saiyad Rahib being power of attorney holder of Laxman Singh was also party to the application for compensation and was aware of the passing of the impugned award and therefore, the claim of the appellant No. 1 Laxman Singh regarding his unawareness about passing of the award cannot be countenanced and in view thereof, as no creditable explanation whatsoever is forthcoming for the delay of over 600 days in filing the appeals by both the appellants, the applications filed by the appellants seeking condonation of delay has no substance. 19. The applications are, therefore, dismissed. 20. 19. The applications are, therefore, dismissed. 20. Consequently, the appeals filed by the appellants are also dismissed as barred by limitation.