Sampat Ram vs Mishri Lal And Ors

The application under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC, filed by the appellant for taking legal heirs of respondent No.2 on record, was in fact not filed by the respondent-claimant before the learned Tribunal because respondent No.2, Driver Uda Ram died during pendency of the claim petition itself. Be that as it may now the endeavour made by appellant by way of abandoned caution to bring his LRs on record before this Court requires consideration.

As the appeal is at the threshold and notices have not yet been issued, the application is allowed and legal heirs mentioned in the application are substituted in place of respondent No.2.

The case is now taken up for consideration of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

The instant appeal is filed by appellant, owner of truck No.RJ-19G-6909, to challenge judgment and award dated 2nd of December, 2014, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara (for short, 'learned Tribunal'). The learned Tribunal, by the impugned judgment and award, while adjudicating the claim of respondent-claimant under Section 166 of the Act, quantified and awarded compensation of Rs.58,360/- on account of injuries suffered by him in a road accident. The learned Tribunal, although exonerated the insurer from liability to pay compensation but ordered it to first pay compensation to the claimant and then recover the same from insured and driver of the vehicle.

Appeal is barred by 1448 days. For condonation of delay, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is filed with following recitals:-

"1. That appeal against the judgment and order dated 02.12.2014 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara was preferred which was registered before this Hon'ble Court. On behalf of respondent insurance company against the award of Rs.58,360/- in claim case no.302/2013 (374/2006) was deposited before the learned tribunal. The learned tribunal judgment and award dated 02.12.2014 directed the respondent insurance company to satisfy the award and subsequently recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.

That the entire amount of the award stand deposited in such a circumstances the requirement of filing the compliance certificate under Section 173 of the M.V. Act deserves to be waived of.

It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this application may kindly be allowed and the compliance certificate under Section 173 of M.V. Act may kindly be waived of."

Upon perusal of the application, in my view, the reasons spelt out therein are not good and sufficient. The law of limitation is based on public policy and even if the words "sufficient cause" are given liberal construction then too in the backdrop of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case it is not possible to accede to the prayer of appellant for condonation of delay.

As a matter of fact, the application is bereft of any cause much less sufficient cause and delay cannot be condoned for mere askance.

In totality, in my view, inordinate delay of 1448 days is unexplained, and therefore, the application for condonation of delay merits rejection, which is accordingly rejected.

The rejection of application also entails rejection of appeal.

The stay petition is also rejected.