Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Vinay Kumar Pathak

Sachin Singh Rajput, J

1) This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short MV Act) has been filed by the appellant/insurance company, being aggrieved by the award dated 18.07.2017 passed by the First Additional Judge of First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg, (C.G.) (for short ‘learned Tribunal’) in Claim Case No. 2701/2013. The appeal is filed along with the application for condonation of delay about 888 days in filing the appeal.

2) Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company submits that against the impugned award, the appellant had initially filed an appeal which was registered before this Court as M.A.C. No. 1533/2017. However, the said appeal was not accompanied by the receipt of the statutory pre-deposit as required under Section 173 of the MV Act. This Court, by order dated 14.11.2017, granted one week’s time to file the deposit receipt, failing which the appeal shall stand dismissed. He submits that though the pre-deposit was subsequently made, the appeal having already stood dismissed, an application for its restoration was filed. The said application, however, could not be registered immediately and was later registered as M.C.C. No. 184/2020. By order dated 24.02.2020, this Court dismissed the said M.C.C., though with liberty in favour of the appellant to file a duly constituted appeal. In these circumstances, it is urged that the delay is neither deliberate nor intentional, and the same deserves to be condoned.

3) Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 submits that the conduct of the appellant clearly demonstrates that there is no sufficient cause for filing the present appeal belatedly. He points out that the earlier appeal against the same impugned award was filed without enclosing the receipt of pre-deposit as mandatorily required under Section 173 of the MV Act. Even when this Court granted one week’s time to comply with the said requirement, the appellant failed to do so within the stipulated time, resulting in dismissal of M.A.C. No. 1533/2017. Thereafter, an application for restoration of the said appeal was filed as late as on 05.02.2020, after a lapse of three years. Therefore, merely because this Court, while dismissing the M.C.C., granted liberty to file a duly constituted appeal, it cannot be said that the appellant has satisfactorily explained the inordinate delay.

4) I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the records.

5) From perusal of the application, it appears that against the impugned award the appellant/insurance company had initially filed an appeal which was registered as M.A.C. No. 1533/2017. The said appeal came to be dismissed for non-compliance of the order of this Court dated 14.11.2017, as the receipt of pre-deposit was not filed. Thereafter, a restoration application was filed only on 05.02.2020, after a lapse of more than two years, which too was dismissed by this Court. If the appellant had sincerely intended to prosecute the challenge to the impugned award, the initial appeal ought to have been filed along with the receipt of the statutory pre-deposit. Even otherwise, after dismissal of the first appeal (M.A.C. No. 1533/2017), the restoration application was filed belatedly after more than two years. While dismissing M.C.C. No. 184/2020, this Court had granted liberty only to explain the delay caused therein. Though pursuant to the order dated 24.02.2020 the present appeal was filed in the year 2020 itself, there is no explanation whatsoever for the inordinate delay in filing the restoration application after more than two years.

6) In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the appellant has failed to establish sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The application, therefore, does not merit acceptance. Apart from this, it is also relevant to note that the learned Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs. 54,000/- in favour of respondent No. 1. Thus, even on merits, no substantial prejudice is caused to the appellant by dismissal of this appeal.

7) Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is rejected. Consequently, the appeal, being barred by limitation, stands dismissed. All pending interlocutory applications, if any, also stand disposed of.