Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 360 (JK)

S. Tarlochan Singh v. Raja Begum

2021-07-27

JAVED IQBAL WANI

body2021
JUDGMENT : 1. This order shall dispose of the application seeking condonation of delay in filing an appeal against the award dated 23.08.2008 (hereinafter 'impugned award') passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ramban (hereinafter 'Tribunal') being File No. 2/C titled as Raja Begum vs. Mohd. Latif and others. 2. The facts those emerge from the perusal of the case are that an award/judgment came to be passed by the Tribunal on 23.08.2008, against the applicant herein being respondent No. 2 in the claim petition. 3. It is stated that applicant was not having any knowledge with regard to the filling of the aforesaid claim petition before the Tribunal, as no service has been effected upon him in the said claim petition. It is stated that Tribunal without effecting service upon him has passed the impugned award by virtue of which he has been directed to satisfy the award amount i.e., Rs.3,22,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% p.a. 4. It is being stated that applicant came to know about the passing of the impugned award only on 14.09.2010 and he immediately contacted his counsel who appeared before the Tribunal. 5. On the basis of the aforesaid explanation as contended in the application and supported with an affidavit, a delay of 638 days is sought to be condoned on the ground that the impugned award is ex-facie bad, contrary to the facts and law and that on the date of accident the vehicle in question was duly insured with the respondent No. 3-United India Insurance Co. Ltd., as such applicant is not liable to pay the award amount. It is further stated that applicant is not the owner of the vehicle in question but one Narayan Singh is owner of the vehicle in question. 6. Per contra the respondents have filed objections resisting and controverting therein the contentions raised and grounds urged in the condonation application by the applicant. The respondents in the first instance have contended that applicant has failed to show any sufficient cause for condoning the delay, as applicant has failed to explain when the copy of the order was received and how such time was consumed for preparing the appeal. The respondents in the first instance have contended that applicant has failed to show any sufficient cause for condoning the delay, as applicant has failed to explain when the copy of the order was received and how such time was consumed for preparing the appeal. It is next contended in the objection that in case petitioner had not been duly served by the Tribunal, he would have applied to the Tribunal for setting aside of the impugned award instead of challenging the same in this Court by way of appeal. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Perusal of the record reveals that no explanation as to when the counsel for the applicant applied for a certified copy of the impugned award and on which date the same was received. The only ground taken by the applicant is that he came to know about the passing of the award only on 14.09.2010. i.e., after two years. 8. Before proceeding to analyze the application and grounds urged therein for condonation of delay it would be appropriate and advantageous to refer to the legal position enumerated by the Apex Court on the subject of condonation of delay. 9. The law on the subject of section 5 of the Limitation Act is no more res integra and there is a long line of decisions rendered and delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court on the subject. 10. The Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh and others and Bherulal, 2020 (10) SCC 654 , at paras 3 and 5 has observed as under:- "3. No doubt, some leeway is given for the Government inefficiencies but the sad part is that the authorities keep on relying on judicial pronouncements for a period of time when technology had not advanced and a greater leeway was given to the Government [LAO v. Katiji]. This position is more than elucidated by the judgment of this Court in Post Master General v. Living Media India Ltd. (2012) 3 SCC 563 where the Court observed as under:- "(27) It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us. (28) Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including the Government. (29) In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. (30) Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay." Eight years hence the judgment is still unheeded. 5. A preposterous proposition is sought to be propounded that if there is some merit in the case, the period of delay is to be given a go-by. If a case is good on merits, it will succeed in any case. It is really a bar of limitation which can even shut out good cases. 5. A preposterous proposition is sought to be propounded that if there is some merit in the case, the period of delay is to be given a go-by. If a case is good on merits, it will succeed in any case. It is really a bar of limitation which can even shut out good cases. This does not, of course, take away the jurisdiction of the Court in an appropriate case to condone the delay." 11. Further the Hon'ble Apex Court in Perumon Bhagvathy Devaswom vs. Bhargavi Amma, 2008 (8) SCC 321 , at para 13(iii) enunciated besides others the following principle qua an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act:- "(iii) The decisive factor in condonation of delay, is not the length of delay, but sufficiency of a satisfactory explanation." 12. A Reference to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 1998 SC 2276 , titled as P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala would also be appropriate and advantageous, wherein at para 6 following is noticed. "Law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribe and the Courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. The discretion exercised by the High Court was thus, neither proper nor judicious. The order condoning the delay cannot be sustained. This appeal, therefore, succeeds and the impugned order is set aside. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay filed in the High Court would stand rejected and the Miscellaneous First Appeal shall stand dismissed as barred by time. No costs." 13. Further the Apex Court in case titled Office of the Chief Post Master General and others vs. Living Media India Ltd. and another, 2012 (3) SCC 563 has observed as under:- “............................. 29. It needs no restatement at our hands that the object for fixing time-limit for litigation is based on public policy fixing a lifespan for legal remedy for the purpose of general welfare. They are meant to see that the parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but avail their legal remedies promptly. Salmond in his Jurisprudence states that the laws come to the assistance of the vigilant and not of the sleepy." 14. They are meant to see that the parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but avail their legal remedies promptly. Salmond in his Jurisprudence states that the laws come to the assistance of the vigilant and not of the sleepy." 14. The application in hand seemingly is filed with the impression that in seeking condonation of delay, the expresses 'sufficient cause' would receive as liberal construction in favor of the appellant-applicant being an agency of the Government. It is however, manifest and without any doubt that the explanation offered by the appellant/applicant in the application in hand cannot by any sense of imagination said to be sufficient, plausible and cogent. The explanation per se is cryptic and casual. Even the affidavit accompanying the application in support thereof is a stereotyped one. 15. Risking repetition it is worth mentioning herein that the instant application relates to condonation of delay in filing an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against an award passed in favour of the non-applicant/respondent who suffered a disability on account of a vehicular accident. A claim lodged before the Tribunal and an award passed thereon in such cases aims at providing cheap and speedy remedy and justice by way of compensation to a victim. A justice oriented approach thus, in such matters is possible if the courts lean against the casual and non-diligent approach and unbecoming conduct of the applicant seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeals against such awards, unless, a sufficient cause is shown in tune and line with the principles and propositions laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The said principle of sufficient cause, however, as noticed above is missing in the instant case. 16. Viewed in the context what has been observed, considered and analyzed hereinabove, the application in hand is found to be without any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed, as a consequence whereof the accompanying appeal shall also stand dismissed. 17. Dismissed along with connected IA(s). 18. Record be remitted back to the Tribunal.