IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
F.A.O.No.5109 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of Decision 26.10.2009
Sukhwinder Singh
...... Appellant
VERSUS
Gurdeep Singh and others
...... Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL
Present: Mr.Parminder Singh, Advocate,
for the appellant.
*****
A.N.JINDAL, J(ORAL):
This appeal, preferred by the owner, is directed against the
award dated 22.04.2008, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Ludhiana, awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- alongwith
interest @ 7.5% per annum in favour of the claimants-respondent Nos.4 to 6
(herein referred as ‘the claimants’) on account of the death of Kulwant Singh
in a motor vehicular accident. This appeal, being time barred is
accompanied by an application for condonation of delay of 458 days in its
filing.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that he came to
know about the imposition of the recovery rights upon him only on receipt
of notice dated 24.10.2009.
Having perused the award, it transpires that the award dated
22.04.2008 was passed only in the presence of Sh.Satnam Singh, Advocate,
his counsel. The appeal has been prepared on 22.10.2009. No affidavit of
Satnam Singh has been filed in order to contend that he never conveyed
about the result of the case to the appellant. Since the award was
pronounced in the presence of parties then the knowledge of the appellant
F.A.O.No.5109 of 2009 (O&M) -2-
would certainly be presumed. The allegation that he came to know about
the award only on 24.10.2009 is totally false as he had filed the appeal on
22.10.2009, therefore, he must be in the knowledge of the award before
hand.
Thus long delay of 458 days in filing the appeal has not been
properly explained and there are no sufficient grounds for condoning the
same. The delay of few days or few hours could be condoned but this long
delay of more than one year could not be condoned on flimsy grounds. If
such delay is condoned after ignoring the law of limitation, it would
completely wipe out the intention of the provision of Limitation Act and
would send wrong signals to the society that any stale litigation could be
entertained at any time. Consequent, the application is dismissed.
Resultantly, the appeal also fails.
(A.N.Jindal)
Judge
26.10.2009
mamta-II