Shri Puran Chand vs Shri Sagar Chand and Others

Surinder Singh, J.—There is delay of 2 years, 3 months and 19 days in filing the present appeal against the award passed by the learned Tribunal in MAC Petition No. 122-MAC/2 of 2007, decided on 28.2.2009, whereby the petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 filed by the proforma respondents impleading the appellant who was a minor sued through his mother, was allowed and compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,93,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% was awarded from the date of petition, i.e. 31.7.2007 on account of death of Shri Kuldip Kumar, brother of the appellant/petitioner and the amount was apportioned in equal shares to his other legal heirs, except mother of the deceased Smt. Lajo Devi who was granted an amount of Rs. 93,000/-. It is contended in the application that at the time of award the appellant/petitioner was minor. He attained the age of majority on 26.5.2009. The award passed was on lower side. He discussed about this matter with the Advocate at Shimla on 20.9.2011 alongwith relevant papers. He being a poor person filed the appeal thereafter.

The application was resisted and contested by the Insurance Company on the ground that he was duly represented through his mother-cum-natural guardian and the plea raised is now baseless. A valuable right has accrued in favour of the Insurance Company. There is no sufficient reason to condone the delay in preferring the appeal, as such sought the dismissal of the application.

On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:

Whether there is sufficient cause for condoning delay in instituting the appeal, as pleaded by the appellant? OP Petitioner.

Relief.

For the reasons to be recorded hereinafter, my findings on the aforesaid issues are as under:

Issue No. 1

No.

Relief

The application is dismissedas per operative portion of the judgment.

Reasons in support of above findings are as under:

ISSUE No. 1.

To substantiate his plea, the petitioner tendered in evidence his affidavit Ext.A1 and closed the evidence. The respondent-Insurance Company did not examine any witness.

The record reveals that when the claim petition was filed appellant/petitioner Puran Chand and his younger brother Ved Parkash both were minors and the petition was filed for and on their behalf by their mother Smt. Lajo Devi, natural guardian joining other dependents as petitioners. During the enquiry before the learned Tribunal, she had examined herself and also produced the best evidence which was available to justify the claim. After due consideration, the learned Tribunal allowed the petition and apportioned the awarded amount of Rs. 2,93,000/- with interest amongst the petitioners.

There is nothing on record to show that the interest of his mother was adverse to that to the appellant and his case was not properly pursued by her which necessitated him to re-agitate it on attaining majority by filing the appeal. Rather he stated that he has been residing with his mother and other family members and also admitted that his mother had filed the claim petition for and on his behalf. Significantly, the other brothers of the appellant/petitioner did not agitate the award who were also awarded the equal amount to that of the appellant.

RELIEF:

Keeping in view the aforestated position, in my opinion, there is no sufficient reason or cause to condone the delay. As such, the application is dismissed. Consequently the appeal [FAO (MVA) No. 370 of 2011] is also dismissed, so also the pending application, if any.