Satnam Singh vs Gurmeet Kaur and Others

Vijender Singh Malik, J.—Delay of 510 days in filing the appeal is prayed to be condoned in the application filed u/s 5 of the Limitation Act. Satnam Singh, the appellant is driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle, i.e., truck bearing registration No. RJ-13-GA-0151. Claim petition of Gurmeet Kaur and others brought on the death of Gurmail Singh in a roadside accident that took place on 9.11.2006 has been allowed vide award dated 18.8.2011 passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Fatehgarh Sahib (for short, "the Tribunal") in a sum of Rs. 3,18,600/-. The appellant-applicant has claimed in his application that the impugned award was passed by learned Tribunal on 18.8.2011 directing the insurance company to pay the amount of compensation. According to him, he was told by his counsel that since the insurance company has been directed to pay the compensation, he need not file appeal against the said award. According to him, now on receipt of summons from the executing court, he has come to know that the owner-cum-driver is also held liable to satisfy the award jointly and severally by the Tribunal. According to him, for the aforesaid reasons, the delay of 510 days in filing the appeal has occurred which is neither intentional nor wilful.

Learned counsel for the appellant has reiterated the averments made in the application by way of submissions while arguing the application.

It is correct that learned Tribunal while passing the impugned award has directed respondent No. 2, the insurer to pay the compensation but gave right of recovery to respondent no. 2 against respondent no. 1, who is appellant-applicant before this court.

The application is quite cryptic, lacking the basic details even. What was the mode for the counsel for the appellant to convey him that he was not required to file the appeal, when he received the summons from the executing court are a few questions that are not answered in the application. He does not speak in the application as to after receipt of summons from the executing court, he contacted some counsel and from him, he came to know of the necessity to file appeal. It shows that he himself had the copy of award from which he claims to have come to know that he was held liable to pay the compensation jointly and severally.

Delay of 510 days is not for a short period. Such delay cannot be condoned on mere asking. A proper case has to be made out for the same, which has not been done in this case. With the vague averments, the appellant-applicant cannot be held entitled to condonation of delay of 510 days in filing the appeal. Consequently, I find that the applicant-appellant does not make out sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The application is, consequently, dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is found barred by limitation and is dismissed in limine.