MOHD ATHAR vs TEHSIM AHMAD AND OTHERS

This appeal is directed against the judgment and Award dated 21.03.2016 passed by M.A.C.T./Ist Addl. District Judge, Haldwani, District Nainital

in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.47 of 2015, whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum ` 7,84,000/- as compensation to the claimants along with

interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date actual payment is made. By the impugned judgment and Award, the

Tribunal has fixed the liability jointly and severally on the owner and driver of the offending vehicle.

There is a delay of 547 days in filing the present appeal. Delay Condonation Application CLMA No.13758 of 2014 has been moved by the

appellant, seeking condonation of delay. It is stated in the affidavit accompanying the delay condonation application that the award dated 21.03.2016

was passed ex-parte against the appellant-owner. Appellant obtained the certified copy of the Award on 25.09.2017, whereafter, he contacted his

counsel before the Tribunal who advised him to file recall application. On 10.05.2016, appellant filed recall application, which was dismissed by the

Tribunal on 16.12.2016. Being aggrieved with the order dated 16.12.2016, appellant filed a writ petition being WPMS No.500 of 2017 before this

Court. By order dated 09.03.2017, writ petition was disposed by the Court, permitting the appellant to file appeal before the appropriate forum. It is

further stated in the affidavit that this order dated 09.03.2017 was not in the knowledge of the appellant and he could know about the same on

28.11.2017. Thereafter, he applied for certified copy of the order and obtained the same. It is also stated that in the meantime appellant fell

seriously ill due to which he could not file the appeal well within time. When he recovered a bit, he collected the entire record of the aforesaid case,

arranged the court fee and contacted his counsel, whereafter, this appeal has been filed.

I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the entire record.

In the claim petition, appellant was arrayed as opposite party no.1. Notices were issued to him by the Tribunal, but he refused to accept the

summons, as is evident from the judgment and Award dated 21.03.2016. Therefore, the Tribunal, vide order dated 21.08.2015, directed to proceed ex-

parte against opposite party no.1 and by judgment and award dated 21.03.2016, the Tribunal awarded compensation to the tune of ` 7,84,000/- in

favour of the claimants and fixed the liability jointly and severally on the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. Claim petition was not contested by

the appellant but when execution proceedings initiated against him, he filed recall application for setting aside ex-parte judgment and decree, which

was dismissed by the Tribunal, vide order dated 16.12.2016. Thereafter, the appellant approached this Court by way of writ petition. Writ petition was

dismissed by the Court on the ground that the order is appealable. It is, thereafter, that the appellant has filed the appeal with a delay of 547 days.Â

From the perusal of contents of the delay condonation application, this Court finds that the appellant has not given any plausible explanation

regarding the delay, especially of the period after decision of writ petition, whereby applicant was permitted to file the appeal from order till the filing

of appeal before this Court. Appellant has only stated that he fell ill but he has not filed any medical documents to support the factum of his illness

during the relevant time. In the case at hand, what appears to the Court is that the appellant slept over the matter for a considerable time after filing of

the writ petition. In this case, delay has occurred due to negligence and inaction on the part of the appellant. It is true that Courts should adopt liberal

approach in condoning the delay but when the delay is inordinate and no sufficient cause has been shown by the appellant for such delay, Court should

not condone the delay in a routine manner.Â

In the light of aforesaid, this Court observes that the appellant has failed to show any sufficient cause for condoning the delay and hence the

application seeking condonation of delay of 547 days in filing the appeal is not liable to be condoned. As a result, the delay condonation application is

dismissed. Consequently, appeal also stands dismissed.

Let the statutory amount along with interest accrued on it, if any, be remitted to the Tribunal concerned.

  Â