SMT. BELUM BIBI vs THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER & ANR

Heard both sides on Misc.Cvl.22837/2010 filed by the appellant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

In the said application, the appellant who is the claimant before the Tribunal has sought for condonation of delay of 572 days in preferring the

present appeal. In the affidavit accompanying the delay application, the appellant/deponent has stated that the impugned judgment and award was

passed by the Tribunal on 22.1.2009, but she came to know about the impugned judgment and award only in the month of June 2010 through her

counsel when she visited his office for enquiring about the case. Though she was intending to prefer an appeal for enhancement of compensation,

she fell ill and suffered typhoid for which she had taken bed rest for 3 months. It is after recovering from typhoid, she contacted her counsel and

preferred this appeal.

The respondent-insurance company alone has filed the statement of objections to the delay application. In the counter affidavit, they have

specifically denied the reasons shown by the appellant in her affidavit evidence. The respondent insurance company has categorically stated that the

reasons are all far from truth and made with an ulterior motive of prejudicing the mind of the court for grant of higher amount of compensation.

The Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Basawaraj and another Vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, reported in 2013 (4) KCCR

3430 (SC), was pleased to observe as below;

The statute of Limitation is founded on public policy, its aim being to secure peace in the community, to suppress fraud and perjury, to quicken

diligence and to prevent oppression. It seeks to burry all acts of the past which have not been agitated unexplainably and have from lapse of time

become stale. An unlimited limitation would lead to a sense of insecurity and uncertainty, and therefore, limitation prevents disturbance or

deprivation of what may have been acquired in equity and justice by long enjoyment or what may have been lost by a party''s own inaction,

negligence'' or latches.

It was further observed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the same case that,

''Sufficient cause'' means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the Court within limitation. In case of a party is found

to be negligent, or for want of bonafide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained

inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing

any condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by this Court in regard to the condonation of

delay. In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the Court on time condoning the delay without any justification, putting

any condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamount to showing utter disregard to the

legislature.

In the case on hand, even according to the appellant, it is she who instituted the claim petition under Section 166 of MV Act before the Tribunal

seeking compensation in respect of a road traffic accident. The judgment and award impugned in this appeal was passed on 22.1.2009. The

appellant has stated that she contacted her advocate only in the month of June 2010. She has not given any reasons as to why during the

intervening period she did not contact her advocate and as to why she did not show any interest to know the stage of her claim petition. It is not

known as to what prevented her to follow up her case and to know the stages of her case. As such, the substantial portion of delay of 11/2 year

from 22.1.2009 to June 2010 has remained unexplained. Further for the subsequent period, though she has stated that she fell ill and suffered

typhoid, no supporting documents including the medical documents has been produced by her. The respondent has denied the cause shown by the

appellant for the delayed period by way of filing counter affidavit. As such, the appellant was expected to substantiate her contention with

documentary evidence or with some materials which inspires confidence in believing her version. On the other hand, except vague statement that

she did not consult her advocate for 11/2 year and later she fell ill, nothing more has been stated by her which appears to be bondafide and can be

considered as sufficient cause.

As such, though in the appeals like this which are filed seeking enhancement of compensation, court would normally take liberal view in

condonation of delay, in the instant case, considering enormous delay of 572 days in filing the appeal and their being absolutely no material to

believe the reasons shown by the appellant, I am of the view that it is not a fit case where discretion of condonation of delay can be exercised in

favour of the appellant. Accordingly, Misc.Cvl.22837/2010 under consideration is dismissed.

In view of dismissal of delay application, appeal is not maintainable as barred by limitation. As such, the appeal also stands dismissed.