Kashmiri Devi and Others vs M/s. Wadhawa Filling Station and Others

Vijender Singh Malik, J.—While filing this appeal against the award dated 01.11.2008, the claimants-appellants made an application for condonation of delay of 948 days in filing the appeal u/s 5 of the Limitation Act. The claim in the application is as under:-

The claimants-appellants engaged Ms. Reeta Arora as counsel to pursue their claim petition before learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (for short ''the Tribunal''). During the pendency of the claim petition, said Ms. Reeta Arora handed over the case to Mr. Anuj Raura, Advocate and without informing the appellants she left for New Zealand. The appellants tried their best to contact Ms. Reeta Arora, Advocate regarding their case but to no avail. Thereafter, Ms. Reeta Arora, Advocate came back to India in October, 2009 and passed on the information regarding decision of the case to the appellants. After that the payment was realized. Then Ms. Reeta Arora, Advocate advised the appellants to file an appeal before the High Court for enhancement of compensation and she promised that she would file an appeal in the High Court. Again without fulfilling her promise, she left for New Zealand without informing the appellants. The appellants tried their best to get in touch with her but again they failed. Left with no other alternative, the appellant sought advice from other counsel and from their friends and relatives and decided to engage another lawyer for filing the appeal. The appellants were not aware of legal implications as they were not duly guided by the previous counsel and in the process a delay of 948 days has been caused in filing the appeal. Claiming the delay to be unintentional and for the reasons mentioned above, it is prayed to be condoned.

Respondent No. 3 has opposed the prayer for condonation of delay. It is claimed that the delay is caused due to deliberate inaction and negligence on the part of the appellants. It is claimed that delay cannot be condoned on the ground of negligence of the parties. Citing a decision of Hon''ble Supreme Court of Balwant Singh (Dead) Vs. Jagdish Singh and Others, , it has been averred that sufficient cause has been defined in the said judgment as it should fall within the concept of reasonable time and proper conduct of the party concerned. Claiming the delay to have occurred due to inaction of the appellants and denying the averments of the appellants in this regard, the application is prayed to be dismissed.

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the appellants had been kept in dark by Ms. Reeta Arora, Advocate. According to him, the claim in the appeal is otherwise strong and a strong case would be defeated if delay is not condoned.

The whole plea of the appellant for condonation of delay rests on the alleged conduct of Ms. Reeta Arora, Advocate. It is the claim of the appellants that Ms. Reeta Arora, Advocate left for New Zealand and appellants could not contact her despite their best efforts. If they had put in their best efforts to contact her and she was not reachable, they should not have relied on her for the job of filing appeal. A perusal of the record of learned Tribunal would however show otherwise. The allegation of the appellants is that during the pendency of the claim petition, Ms. Reeta Arora, Advocate handed over the case to Mr. Anuj Raura, Advocate and left for New Zealand. The file of the Tribunal clearly shows that the power of attorney in favour of Mr. Anuj Raura, Advocate has been signed by all the claimants. It is not a power of attorney given to Mr. Anuj Raura, Advocate by Ms. Reeta Arora, Advocate. Mr. Anuj Raura, Advocate is a counsel appointed by the appellants for pursing the claim petition and they cannot claim that Ms. Reeta Arora, Advocate during the pendency of the claim petition entrusted the case to Mr. Anuj Raura, Advocate and left for New Zealand.

In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the appellants are not stating the truth in the application. Mr. Anuj Raura, Advocate is the counsel for the appellants before the Tribunal and it cannot be believed that they would have been advised for filing of appeal by Ms. Reeta Arora, Advocate whom they had given up during pendency of the claim petition itself. Therefore, there is no sufficient cause explaining the delay of 948 days in filing the appeal.

Consequently, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. On dismissal of the application for condonation of delay of 948 days, the appeal is found to be barred by limitation and is dismissed as such.