Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Rani Tiwari vs Kailiraj @ Balraj Singh on 19 March, 2024
1
In The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
At Jabalpur
Before
Hon'ble Shri Justice Duppala Venkata Ramana
On The 19th Of March, 2024
Misc. Appeal No. 5636 Of 2022
Between:-
1. Smt. Rani Tiwari, W/O Late Rajendra Tiwari, Aged About 45
Years, R/O. 1075 Sahinaka Road, Garha Ward District
Jabalpur (Madhya Pradesh).
2. Priya Tiwari D/O Late Rajendra Tiwari, Aged About 22 Years,
R/O 1075, Sahinaka Road, Garha Ward, District Jabalpur
(Madhya Pradesh).
3. Priyanshu Tiwari S/O Late Rajendra Tiwari, Aged About 20
Years, R/O 1075, Sahinaka Road, Garha Ward, District
Jabalpur (Madhya Pradesh).
4. Ayush Tiwari S/O Late Rajendra Tiwari, Aged About 23 Years,
R/O 1075, Sahinaka Road, Garha Ward, District Jabalpur
(Madhya Pradesh).
.....Appellants
(By Shri Kapil Patwardhan - Advocate )
AND
1. Kaliraj @ Balraj Singh, S/O Vishambhar Singh, Aged About
40 Years, R/O. Gram Dhanpuri, Police Station Majhgaon,
District Jabalpur (Madhya Pradesh).
2. Mohad. Bhura S/O Mohad. Happu, Aged About 45 Years,
R/O Jawahar Ward, Near Narayan Talkies, Bawali Sehore,
District Jabalpur (Madhya Pradesh).
3. National Insurance Company Ltd. Through Divisional
Manager Office No.2, 506, Civic Centre Jabalpur (Madhya
Pradesh).
.....Respondents
(By Shri Gulab Sohane - Advocate For Respondent No.3)
2
This appeal coming on for admission this day, the court passed
the following:
ORDER
The following issues arise for consideration:-
(i) Whether the appellants/claimants have shown sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 1109 days in filing this appeal before this Court ?
(ii) Depending on out come of the above issue this Court considered are ?
(iii) Whether the appellants/claimants has made out a case to consider the application for condonation of delay ? (2) The brief facts are that the present appeal filed by the appellants/claimants against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur on 09.08.2019. Challenging the order of learned Tribunal, filed this present appeal with delay of 1109 days and alongwith appeal filed IA No.14395/2022 for condonation of delay.
(3) Learned counsel for appellants/claimants stated that the delay has occurred as cumulative result of factors due to Covid-19 pandemic spreading entire the country from the year 2020. After Covid-19 pandemic, the appellants are facing financial crises and fail to arrange the Court fees and legal expenses and caused delay of 1109 days in filing this appeal which is bonafide and the delay caused is not deliberate or willful. Hence, the delay may be condoned and admit the appeal.
(4) In reply, Shri G.C. Sohane, learned counsel for respondent no.3 contends that there is no explanation at all for the inordinate delay and causes mentioned in the affidavit are totally incorrect. Further stated that from August, 2019, High Court has been functioning and during Covid -19 pandemic period also, the High Court functioning through video conferencing. It is his contention that right from the day one, even during 3 Covid-19 pandemic period, the matters were taken up for consideration by online mode. Therefore, the reasons assigned for delay are not at all relevant and he has very strenuously opposed the application for condonation of delay and the reasons mentioned in the affidavit are not sufficient. He also submits that the submissions made on the merits of the material in appeal cannot be a ground to condone the delay.
(5) This Court has considered the submissions made. Normally a very lenient view is being taken in the matters of this nature, particularly, where the appeals filed by the claimant against the award passed by the learned Tribunal which is a beneficial legislation giving benefit to the victims but the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held that sufficient cause should be shown and that the word 'sufficient cause' should receive a liberal construction, so as to advance substantial justice.
(6) In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, I am posing a question why the delay has to be condoned mechanically merely because the family lost their bread earner, some how arranging Court fees and legal expenses for filing an appeal and to contact their advocates is not at all proper explanation. Though I am conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice but I am of the considered view that in the facts and circumstances, the appellants cannot take advantage of Covid-19 pandemic.
(7) A decision reported in the case of Chief Post Master & Ors vs Living Media India Ltd.& Anr1, wherein it is held as under:-
"After incorporating the above explanation, this Court refused to condone the delay by observing thus:
1. AIR 2012 SC 1506 4 "3. .......Having regard to the law of limitation which binds everybody, we cannot find any way of granting relief. It is true that Government should not be treated as any other private litigant as, indeed, in the case of the former the decisions to present and prosecute appeals are not individual but are institutional decisions necessarily bogged down by the proverbial red-tape. But there are limits to this also. Even with all this latitude, the explanation offered for the delay in this case merely serves to aggravate the attitude of indifference of the Revenue in protecting its common interests. The affidavit is again one of the stereotyped affidavits making it susceptible to the criticism that the Revenue does not seem to attach any importance to the need for promptitude even where it affects its own interest."
(8) Another decision in the case of Government of Maharashtra (Water Resources Department) Represented by Executive Engineer vs. Borse Brothers Engineers & contractors Private Ltd. 2, para 65 and 66 are as under:-
"65. Apart from this, there is a long delay of 131 days beyond the 60-day period provided for filing an appeal under Section 13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act. There is no explanation worth the name contained in the condonation of delay application, beyond the usual file- pushing and administrative exigency. This appeal is therefore dismissed.
66. In the civil appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 15278 of 2020, the impugned judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dated 27-1-2020 [M.P. Poorv Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd. v. Swastik Wires, 2020 SCC OnLine MP 3003] relies upon Consolidated Engg. [Consolidated Engg. Enterprises v. Irrigation Deptt., (2008) 7 SCC 169] and thereby states that the judgment of this Court in N.V. International [N.V. International v. State of Assam, (2020) 2 SCC 109 : (2020) 1 SCC (Civ) 275] would not apply. The judgment of the High Court is wholly incorrect inasmuch as Consolidated Engg. [Consolidated Engg. Enterprises v. Irrigation Deptt., (2008) 7 SCC 169] was a judgment which applied the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act and had nothing to do with
2. 2021 6 SCC 460 5 the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.N.V. International [N.V. International v. State of Assam, (2020) 2 SCC 109 : (2020) 1 SCC (Civ) 275] was a direct judgment which applied the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act and then held that no condonation of delay could take place beyond 120 days. The High Court was bound to follow N.V. International [N.V. International v. State of Assam, (2020) 2 SCC 109 : (2020) 1 SCC (Civ) 275] , as on the date of the judgment of the High Court, N.V. International [N.V. International v. State of Assam, (2020) 2 SCC 109 : (2020) 1 SCC (Civ) 275] was a judgment of the two learned Judges of the Supreme Court binding upon the High Court by virtue of Article 141 of the Constitution. On this score, the impugned judgment of the High Court deserves to be set aside." (9) By following the above judgments read together, the delay ultimately cannot be condoned. If the present affidavit is examined against the backdrop of the case law and facts including the fact, it is clear that the affidavit filed by the claimants suffers from lack of material particulars. The mere fact that judgment delivered by 09.08.2019, Covid-19 from March 2020 to March 2022. No supporting affidavits are filed in support of the submissions of learned counsels and there is huge delay of 1109 days in filing the appeal and the facts of this case also show that there was no sufficient cause whatsoever to condone such a long delay.
(10) Coming back to the Motor Vehicles Act, the legislative intent is to provide appropriate compensation for the victims and to protact their substantive rights.
(11) Under these circumstances, it is clear that there is absolutely no clarity and there is no chronology of delay in filing this appeal, for important note nothing is stated to cause delay except Covid-19 and that only ground cannot be considered. Therefore, whenever be the inherent merits of the case, in view of the objections raised, vehement opposition coupled with the facts that delay is insufficiently explained, this Court has to dismiss the application for condonation of delay.
6(12) In such circumstances, this Court has no difficulty in concluding that the application filed by the petitioner for condonation of the delay of 1109 days, lacked bonafide and the petition had been negligent all through and above all the explanation offered by him was concocted and false.
(13) In such circumstances, obviously the discretion could not have been exercised in favour of the petitioners/appellants, who had not approached the Court with a clean hand and therefore, this Court declined to allow the IA No.14395/2022 for condonation of delay.
(14) In view of the aforesaid discussions and the for the reasons stated above, I find no merit in this petition, consequently the appeal is dismissed.
DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA,J vibha VIBHA PACHORI 2024.03.20 14:52:37 +05'30'