State of Punjab and Another vs Smt. Bhajno and Others

G.S. Singhvi, J.—The State of Punjab has filed the present appeal against the award dated 22.10.1992 whereby the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amritsar, awarded a sum of Rs. 1,92,000/- to the widow of late Shri Puran Chand and his five minor children and mother and since the appeal is time barred, an application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed for condonation of delay.

We have heard Mrs. Tuli and Shri. B.R. Mahajan and perused the period of the case.

As per the certified copy of the award for which an application was filed on 24.10.1992 and copy was made available to the appellants on 17.11.1992 the appeal could be filed upto 14.2.1993 but has been filed on 3.3.1993.

In order to explain the delay it has been stated that after receipt of the certified copy of the award, the District Attorney opined in favour of filing of the appeal. His opinion was concurred by the Legal Remembrancer, Punjab and instructions were sent to the Advocate General, Punjab vide memo No. 73/CO/23(377)88 dated 29.1.1993. On receipt of the said memo, the Advocate General wrote letter dated 2.2.1993 to the Director General of Police, Punjab for supply of court fee and Rs. 25,000/- to be deposited in the Court. This letter was received on 4.2.1993 in the office of the Director General of Police. Thereafter, the case remained under scrutiny with the Law Officers of the office of the Director General of Police upto 11.2.1993 and a final decision regarding filing of the appeal was conveyed to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur though TPM dated 12.2.1993. Advocate General vide his TPM dated 15.2.1993 again asked the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur to deposit Rs. 25,000/-. Thereafter the bill was prepared on 16.2.1993 and was sent to the treasury. The amount was withdrawn on 23.2.1993. Constable Gulab Singh of Police Lines, Ferozepur came to Chandigarh and gave the amount to the office of the Advocate General, Punjab on 2.3.1993 and the appeal was filed on 3.3.1993. On the basis of these facts, it has been pleaded that delay in the filing of the appeal has been explained and there is no negligence on the part of the appellants in prosecuting the appeal.

We asked Mrs. Tuli as to where was the occasion for the office of the Director General of Police to take a decision regarding filing of the appeal in the face of the decision already taken by the Legal Remembrancer but Mrs. Tuli could not give any satisfactory explanation.

Admittedly, the office of the Advocate General, Punjab, had written to the Director General of Police as early as on 2.2.1993 to send the amount of court fee and Rs. 25,000/-There was no justification for the office of the Director General of Police, Punjab to take almost ten days time only in processing the file. The statement that the Law Officers of the office of the Director General of Police were scrutinising the papers is far from being worthy of reliance. These Law Officers had no business to deal with the file after the Government had instructed the Advocate General to file an appeal. Then again there is no explanation as to why the amount withdrawn on 23.2.1993 was not sent for a period of seven days. This all shows that the officials of the office of the Director General of Police and that of the office of Senior Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur were taking the issue of the filing of the appeal in a most casual manner. They did not give any importance to the period of [ limitation and took the things leisurely. In our opinion, this cannot be made a ground for condoning the delay in filing the appeal.

We further find that affidavit filed in support of the application filed u/s 5 of the Limitation Act is highly defective. It does not even contain the verification as required by the provisions of Order 19 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Another reason for not entertaining the request of the appellants for condonation of delay is that the appeal which was filed before this Court on 3.3.1993 was returned on 11.3.1993 for compliance of certain objections. It was refiled on July 7, 1994 and that too without removing all the defects. The application for condonation of delay was also filed after a period of more than one year. It is, therefore, evident that for a period of two years the appellants did not take care to file the appeal in a proper form with necessary documents. This only fortifies our conclusion that the appellants have taken the appeal most casually.

Thus, there is no ground to condone the delay and we dismiss the application filed by the appellants u/s 5 of the Limitation Act.

Since the application filed u/s 5 of the Limitation Act has been dismissed, the appeal is also dismissed as barred by limitation.

The amount of Rs. 25,000/- deposited in this Court be sent to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amritsar for disbursement to the claimants (widow, five minor children and mother of the deceased-Puran Chand).

Before parting with the case, we deem it necessary to take note of the fact that while disposing of CM No. 9108-CII of 1995 in FAO No.1370 of 1994, we had directed the Registry to give effect to the directions given in that order in all the pending cases and also in future case which may be filed in the Court. The Additional Registrar (Judicial) should call upon the concerned officials to intimate is to what steps they have taken for compliance of that order. He should submit a report to this Court about the compliance of that order and such report should be placed before the Court on 5.10.1995.