F.A.O.No. 99 of 2008 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
F.A.O.No. 99 of 2008 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 12.12.2008
Sucha Singh and others
....Appellants
Versus
Pawanjit Kaur and others
...Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
....
Present : Mr.Vishal Deep Goyal, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr. Y.P.Khullar, Advocate
for respondent No.3.
...
MAHESH GROVER, J.
This appeal is directed against the award of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana dated 4.8.2006.
Along with the appeal an application under Section 5 of
the Limitation Act has been moved for condonation of delay of 1
year and 49 days. The plea taken up for filing the appeal after such an
inordinate delay is that the counsel who was prosecuting the case on
behalf of the driver and owner told Sucha Singh, who was the driver
of the offending vehicle, that the liability, if any, would be that of
Kashmira Singh, who is the owner and that he need not file any
appeal and that Kashmira Singh never disclosed about the pendency
of the claim petition to the rest of the appellants herein i.e. 2 to 5
during his life time. Kashmira Singh is said to have died on
F.A.O.No. 99 of 2008 -2-
20.10.2007 and the appeal was also filed in 2007. A separate
application has also been filed under Rule 2 Chapter 1, Part-C, Vol.5,
High Court Rules and Orders read with Order 22 Rule 3 C.P.C. for
leave to allow the legal heirs of deceased Kashmira Singh to
prosecute the present appeal.
Learned counsel for respondent No.3 has vehemently
opposed the prayer for condonation of delay and has stated that both,
Kashmira Singh and Sucha Singh were being represented by the same
counsel and it is not conceivable that he would not inform about the
filing of the appeal. That apart, it is stated that in the impugned award
there is a categoric finding regarding the involvement of the vehicle
and that in the appeal the liability is sought to be controverted only on
the ground of non-involvement of the vehicle in the said accident.
Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the
vehicle was not involved in the accident as in the FIR no name of the
driver and the number of the vehicle had been mentioned even though
it was lodged one hour after the accident and it was purely on the
basis of supplementary statement recorded by one Chuhar Singh
complainant that the name of the driver and number of the vehicle
were mentioned.
A perusal of the award shows that Sucha Singh driver
was facing the criminal prosecution for having caused this accident
under the provisions of Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and
in the proceedings before the Tribunal which are in the nature of an
inquiry this is sufficient indicator to establish that the vehicle was
involved in the accident. In this view of the matter, the plea raised by
F.A.O.No. 99 of 2008 -3-
the learned counsel for the appellants is not tenable.
Learned counsel for the appellants further contends that
in the revision against the order of the criminal court convicting
Sucha Singh for the offence the only ground for consideration is that
the particulars of the vehicle and the name of the driver were given in
the supplementary statement and the same were not recorded in the
FIR.
I am afraid, the parameters governing the criminal
prosecution are totally different from those governing the proceedings
before a Tribunal and the proceedings before the criminal court have
no bearing on the proceedings before the Tribunal except for the fact
that the judgment of the criminal court can be taken into consideration
as a persuasive piece of evidence. In the instant case as observed
earlier, Sucha Singh driver was found to be involved in the accident
on the basis of an independent investigation carried out by the police
on the basis of which he faced the criminal prosecution which has
also resulted in his conviction. Therefore, prima facie there is nothing
to show that the vehicle was not involved in the accident and the
accident had not been caused by Sucha Singh driver.
That apart, the inordinate delay of 1 year and 49 days in
filing the appeal has largely been unexplained. However, reliance was
placed on Dilbagh Singh v. Collector Land Acquisition, Industries
Department Punjab, Chandigarh and others (2002-2) P.L.R. 775 and
S.V.Matha Prasad v. Lal Chand Meghraj and others (2007-3) P.L.R.
97.
After perusal of the judgments cited above by the
F.A.O.No. 99 of 2008 -4-
learned counsel for the appellants I am of the opinion that the same do
not apply to the facts of the present case, as the facts noticed in those
judgments are totally distinct from the one which are existing in the
present case.
Further, delay cannot be condoned unless sufficient cause
has been shown to the Court. The reasons which have been given in
the application can never be considered to be good grounds for
condonation of delay for it amounts to putting premium on
callousness.
Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of any merit is
dismissed both on the question of limitation as also on merits.
12.12.2008 (MAHESH GROVER)
JUDGE
dss