Punjab-Haryana High Court
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs Smt. Kailash Devi And Others on 9 September, 1993
Equivalent citations: 1995ACJ212, AIR1994P&H45, AIR 1994 PUNJAB AND HARYANA 45, (1995) 2 TAC 147, (1995) 1 ACJ 212, (1994) 2 ACC 326, (1994) 1 RRR 41
ORDER N. K. Kapoor, J.
1. Appellant feeling aggrieved by the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated 4-8-1992 filed the appeal along with application u/S. 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. This Court issued notice in C.M. No. I586-C-II of 1993 to the respondents who put in appearance and contested the same. On May 26,1993 this Court on perusal of the application and the accompanying affidavit came, prima facie, to a conclusion that the averments made by the applicant in his application u/S. 5 of the Limitation Act are in very general and vague terms. All the same before taking a final decision the Court directed the applicant to place on record further affidavit or other material to make out a sufficient cause for the delay. The applicant consequently filed another affidavit in support of his application on 1-6-1993. The matter was once again examined by the Court. It was found that even additional affidavit filed by the applicant contains mistakes and so a direction was given to the applicant to file another affidavit giving correct dates. Instead of merely correcting dates; the applicant has placed on record another affidavit giving in the details of the various circumstances which led to delay in filing the appeal. The affidavit is dated 12-8-1993.
2. The learned counsel for the applicant in support of his plea that the delay of 47 days stands fully explained and the same comes within the ambit of sufficient cause as envisaged by Section 5 of the Limitation Act almost read in extenso the affidavit dated 12-8-1993. In addition thereto the counsel relied upon the decision of the apex Court in case reported as Collector, Land Acquisition, Anatnag v. Mst. Katiji, AIR 1987 SC 1353 and thus urged that the delay be condoned and the appeal be heard on merit.
3. Counsel for the respondents, however, argued that each one of the three affidavits filed by the applicant give different versions as to how this delay occurred. In fact, the applicant has tried to improve upon the original version as given in the application. Examined in this light there is no escape from the conclusion that the latter version as per affidavit dated 1-6-1993 and 12-8-1993, is in the nature of an after thought. The applicant, in fact, has been callous in taking suitable steps for filing this appeal and thus no case is made out for treating the delay in filing the appeal as a sufficient cause.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the application along with each one of three affidavits sworn by Sh. Amarjeet Pal Chopra, Deputy Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Regional Officer, Chandigarh applicant. Existence of sufficient cause is the condition precedent in exercise of this discretion while deciding the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Question of diligence or bona fide is to be considered thereafter. Sufficient cause has not been defined in the Act. However, as held by various judicial pronouncements, it would mean a cause beyond the control of party invoking the aid of this section. The delay, if could be avoided by taking due care and attention will not come within the ambit of sufficient cause. In the present case, in the first instance, all that has been stated in the affidavit dated 30-1-1993 is that the Regional Office of the company immediately decided to file the appeal and so directed its Divisional Office to send the necessary draft of Rs. 25,000/- as required. The Divisional Office, however, lost the papers sent by the Regional Office and could locate the same on 22-1-1993 and it is thereafter that the file was immediately sent to the Advocate for preparation of appeal by hand on 23-1-1993 itself. Since 24th, 25th and 26th of January, 1993 were holidays, the appeal was filed on 30-1-1993. In the subsequent affidavit of 1-6-1993 the company came with a version that the appeal could not be filed as the counsel desired that certain other documents be sent before he can give an opinion as to the efficacy of filing the appeal or not. The affidavit incorporates snippets from the letters exchanged amongst the Regional Office, Divisional Office and the counsel. It is worth noticing that no mention has been made as to loss of the original papers. In the latter affidavit of August 12, 1993, another version to explain this delay of 47 days in filing the appeal has been introduced. Again this affidavit refers to the letters exchanged between the two offices of the company and states how the matter has been examined by one or the other. A bare perusal of this affidavit leaves no manner of doubt that a new version has been introduced which did not find mention in the earlier two affidavits sworn by the same person Sh. Amarjit Pal Chopra. In fact, if one closely peruses the affidavit dated 12-8-1993, it almost contradicts the first two versions as given in the affidavit of 30-1-1993 and f-6-1993. The story of loss of original file stands belied as the letter of Divisional Office dated 9-10-1992 makes mention that certified copy of the award was sent to the Regional Office which was received on 5-11-1992. Thereafter the delay is sought to be explained by referring to the various communications addressed by one office to the other or between counsel and the two offices i.e. Divisonal as well as Regional Office. The Regional Office having received the original file along with the certified copy of the impugned award could file the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. The delay occurred on account of correspondence between the two offices and the same cannot come within the ambit of sufficient cause as envisaged by the Act. Had the company been vigilant, such a delay would have not occurred.
5. There is no denying the fact that the expression sufficient cause should normally be construed liberally so as to advance substantial justice but that would be in a case where no negligence or inaction or want of bona fide is imputable to the applicant. The discretion to condone the delay is to be exercised judicially i.e. one of is not to be swayed by sympathy or benvolence. The ratio of the judgment of the apex Court in Col-lector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag's case (supra) on the facts of the present case is not attracted. Both the offices of the company, have taken the matter very casually resulting in delay in filing the appeal. As observed earlier, reasons assigned in the affidavit accompanying the application does not satisfy the test of sufficient cause as envisaged by Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Resultantly, the appeal having been filed after the expiry of period of, limitation too stands dismissed. No costs.
6. Application dismissed.