Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 684 (RAJ)

Mithu Lal Bairwa v. Geelu Balai

2018-03-06

DINESH MEHTA

body2018
ORDER : Dinesh Mehta, J. I.A. No. 213/2018. The appellants have filed the present application, seeking exemption of requirement of depositing the amount of Rs. 25,000/-, being a condition precedent for maintainability of appeal required under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. Mr. Gopal Acharya, learned counsel appearing for the appellants could not show any law, permitting the High Court to pass an order of dispensing with such statutory requirement. 3. In view thereof, the application, seeking exemption of requirement of depositing of amount of Rs. 25,000/- is rejected. CMCC No.1298/2017. 4. The appellant has filed the present application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay. 5. On perusal of the averments made in the application and record, this Court finds that the applicant has sought to lay challenge to a judgment and award passed way back on 07.12.2007, whereby the applicants being owner of the offending Tractor have been held liable to pay the amount of compensation. 6. The present application and the appeal have been filed on 02.11.2017, after about 10 years of the award having been passed. 7. The only reason rather lame excuse given in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is that the appellants-applicants were not aware about the passing of the impugned award. 8. It would be worthwhile to go through the averments made by the applicant in paras No.3 & 4 of the application, seeking condonation of 10 years' delay, which are reproduce here infra:- "That the non-claimant/respondent Rampal has fixed filed reply to the claim petition and denied the averments made therein and it was requested that the Tractor No. RJ-06-R-1720 was sold by him on a consideration of Rs. 45,501/- to appellant/non-claimant No.2 on dated 05.10.2000 and since then he is the owner of the tractor and the non-claimant/respondent has no possession of the same after 05.10.2000 and same was driven under the control of the appellant/non-claimant No.2 and as such the non-claimant/respondent has no liability for the payment of compensation and the respondents No.1 & 3 are the liable for the payment of the compensation, hence it was requested to dismiss the claim petition against him. That the appellant/non-claimant No.1 has filed the reply to the claim petition and denied the averments of the claim petition and it was further stated that deceased was not doing the wage or any business, he was a student and he was not having any income of his own. It was admitted that the offending tractor was sold by non-claimant/respondent Rampal to appellant/non-claimant No.2 Mithu Lal Bairwa on dated 05.10.2000 in a consideration of Rs. 45,501/- which was under the control of appellant/non-claimant No.2. The deceased was not working on the tractor but he was going to enjoy the festival, when he refused to take him with him he sat in the tractor, he was driving the tractor in his control but suddenly due to some technical problem the accident took place for which he is not responsible as such the claimant is not entitled to be awarded claim, hence it was requested to dismiss the claim petition filed by the claimant against him." 9. Mr. Acharya, learned counsel for the applicants, seeking condonation of delay submitted that the appellants are poor, uneducated villagers, who were neither aware of passing of the award nor were aware of the legal intricacies. He further submitted that the appellants came to know about the passing of the award only in the year 2013, when they received the notice of the attachment of their agricultural land. 10. A photocopy of such notice has been shown by learned counsel for the appellants during the submissions. 11. It is to be noted that the appellants were duly represented by their counsel, during the proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the award under consideration had been passed in presence of their lawyer. Hence, this Court is unable to comprehend as to what prevented the applicants to take up the requisite proceedings for a period of four years, even after receipt of the notice of recovery or the attachment in the year 2013. 12. The averments made in the application are not enough to explain the delay of 10 years, much less justifying its condonation. The appellants are guilty of laches inordinate delay in filing the present appeal. Such lackadaisical attitude cannot be given a go by in the purported quest to serve ends of justice. 13. 12. The averments made in the application are not enough to explain the delay of 10 years, much less justifying its condonation. The appellants are guilty of laches inordinate delay in filing the present appeal. Such lackadaisical attitude cannot be given a go by in the purported quest to serve ends of justice. 13. If the version of the appellants are accepted that they are poor, then this Court cannot loose sight of the fact that the respondents-claimants too are poor. This Court cannot be oblivious of the plight of poor claimants, who have been deprived of the fruits of award in their favour. 14. It may be observed that most of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants are not stated or mentioned in the application, seeking condonation of delay. 15. In view of the discussions above, this Court does not find any reason to condone the gross delay in filing the present appeal. The application (CMCC No.1298/2017) under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is rejected. 16. As a consequence whereof, the appeal filed by the appellants is also dismissed.