IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.M.No.12005-CII of 2007 and
FAO. NO.2389 OF 2007
DATE OF ORDER: 27.3.2009
Jagjit Singh and others
....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Iqbal Singh and others
....Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH
Present: Mr. M.L. Saini, Advocate for the appellants.
Mrs. Jaspal Kaur, Advocate for respondent No.1.
JASWANT SINGH, J. (ORAL)
Present appeal has been preferred after a delay of 6 years and
37 days.
Appellants-claimants, who are the widow and two married sons
of deceased Darshan Singh, who at the age of 56 years, died in a motor
vehicular accident on 29.1.1999 involving his Scooter and Bus No.PB-
30B/9002 (hereinafter to be referred as “the offending bus”) owned by the
respondents-Punjab Roadways, have challenged the award dated 22.11.2000
passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barnala whereby a
sum of Rs.2,40,000/- was awarded as compensation (5000 x 12 x 4) to
appellant No.1-widow (aged 52 years) only along with interest @ 12% per
annum from the date of filing the petition till its realization.
In the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act
for condonation of delay of 6 years and 37 days, the only ground given is
that the counsel for the appellants-claimants before the learned MACT,
Barnala had advised them that even the appeal can be filed against the
award passed by the learned Tribunal in the High Court at any time, as there
C.M.No.12005-CII of 2007 and #2#
FAO. NO.2389 OF 2007
is no limitation provided for filing the claim petition before the Tribunal.
Notice of the application was issued. Reply of the same has
been filed by respondent No.1-Iqbal Singh driver of the offending bus
wherein it has been averred that no ground much less sufficient ground has
been given for condoning the delay.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
It is amply clear that as per second proviso to Sub Section (1)
of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the appeal against the
award of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has to be filed within
a limitation period of 90 days and if the Court is satisfied that the appellants
were prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal in time, the
same can be entertained beyond the period of 90 days.
In the facts of the case, I find that there is unwarranted and
unexplained delay of 6 years and 37 days in filing the appeal. The alleged
bold averment of wrong advice of the counsel cannot be believed and this is
no ground to condone the delay. No affidavit of the said counsel has been
annexed to show that he had given such an advice. Nothing has been placed
on record to show that on account of aforesaid wrong advice, any complaint
was made before any Forum.
It is quite settled that purely on sympathetic grounds, delay
cannot be condoned.
I find no ground to condone the delay.
Dismissed as barred by limitation.
March 27, 2009 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE