Nand Lal vs Smt. Krishna and Others

K.C. Puri, J.—This is an appeal against award dated 7.2.2006 passed by Dr. Shiva Sharma, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar, vide which the claim petition preferred by LRs of Satpal was accepted.

The case of the claimants is that Satpal s/o Chandu Ram was travelling in a tractor bearing registration No. HNB-1264 to the brick kiln situated in village Jamalpur. After loading bricks and pieces of bricks in the trolley of the said tractor, the deceased and others were returning to their village and around 10.00 A.M. when they reached near the water works of village, Jamalpur, one canter bearing registration No. HR 18/0248 being driven by Tilak Raj in a rash and negligent manner came and hit the back portion of trolley of the tractor from behind as a result of which the tractor turned turtle but the trolly did not turn. Attar Chand, driver of the tractor jumped off the tractor and saved himself. But Satpal and Naresh fell under the tractor and received multiple grievous injuries. After the accident, the driver of the canter sped away the canter. Manohar Lal and Attar Chand raised alarm. Satpal and Naresh were taken out from under the tractor and were taken to the Civil Hospital, Jamalpur. Satpal succumbed to the injuries sustained by him.

Respondent No. 1 filed written statement and denied the accident and the entire claim of the petitioners and pleaded that the compensation claimed was exorbitant. Respondents No. 4 and 5 have not contested the case and were proceeded against ex parte. Respondents No. 7 and 8 did not file any written statement despite opportunity.

The Tribunal framed the following issues:

Whether Satpal died in a accident which occurred on 19.12.1999 in the area of village Jamalpur on Hansi-Toshan road due to rash and negligent driving of either tractor No. HNB-1264 or Canter No. HR-18-0248 by respondent No. 4 or due to contributory rash and negligent driving of tractor No. HNB 1264 and canter No. HR-18-0248 by respondent No. 4 Tilak Raj? OPP.

If issue No. 1 is proved then whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation so to what amount and from whom? OPP.

Whether the claim petition is not maintainable in the present form as alleged? OPR

Whether the petitioners have no cause of action to file the petition? OPR

Relief.

Claimants examined two witnesses, namely, Krishna as PW-1 and Manohar Lal as PW-2 in support of their case besides placing reliance upon documentary evidence. Whereas in rebuttal, Naresh Kumar appeared as RW-1.

The learned Tribunal after appraisal of the evidence, returned the finding on issues No. 1 and 2 in favour of the petitioners and against respondents No. 4 and 5. Issues No. 3 and 4 were not pressed before the Tribunal and as such were answered against the respondents. In view of findings on issues No. 1 and 2, the claim petition was accepted and claimants were awarded an amount of Rs. 3,52,600/-.

The award was passed as far back, as on 7.2.2006. The appeal by Nand Lal-present appellant, has been preferred on 7.4.2010 and there is a delay of 1430 days in filing the present appeal. Alongwith the appeal an application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed for condonation of delay. It is pleaded that applicant engaged Sh. S.K. Gurjer, Advocate before the Tribunal, but he did not appear. The applicant came to know about the award on 20.7.2009 when he got summons from the execution side. The applicant is a poor and illiterate person and appeal could not be filed in time due to scarcity of funds.

The main ground in the appeal taken by the appellant is that the vehicle in question was owned by Tilak Raj son of Nand Lal as per affidavit Annexure A-1.

Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that if there is a lapse on the part of counsel for the appellant, in that case, the delay can be condoned. To support this contention, learned Counsel for the appellant has relied upon the authority reported as N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy, .

It is not disputed that appellant was duly served and it is alleged that there is lapse on the part of Sh. S.K. Gurjer, Advocate. During the course of arguments, learned Counsel for the appellant is fair enough to concede that no action has been taken against Sh. S.K. Gurjer, Advocate, by the appellant so far. Even according to the appellant he came to know about the award on 20.7.2009 and even thereafter, the present appeal has been filed after 172 days. The appellant is required to be explain the delay of each day. Even on merits, it is alleged that son of the appellant was the owner of the offending vehicle, as per affidavit. But no record regarding registration of vehicle has been placed on the file. It so seems that the present appeal has been simply filed just to delay the execution proceedings.

So, in these circumstances, the appeal stands dismissed being time barred as well as on merits.