Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Smt. Phoola W/O Late Moti Lal Raigar vs Mukesh Kumar S/O Pyare Lal Koli on 4 January, 2022
Author: Sudesh Bansal
Bench: Sudesh Bansal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 32/2020
Smt. Phoola W/o Late Moti Lal Raigar
----Appellant
Versus
Mukesh Kumar S/o Pyare Lal Koli & ors.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Deepak Khandelwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Kumar Jain for Responden No.3 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 04/01/2022 This appeal has been filed by the claimants, assailing the award dated 23.06.2011 to the extent that the Insurance Company has wrongly been exonerated despite the fact that the driver was having a valid license for driving a light motor vehicle as well.
The appeal is delayed by 3008 days and a separate application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed.
Heard the counsel for the parties on the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
It has been averred in the application that the applicant is an old and illiterate lady and there is no member of her first family who take her care and to deal with the claim petition filed by her. It has been stated that applicant could not come to know about the passing of impugned award dated 23.08.2011. However, when she heard about the death of her counsel Mr. G.G.Srivastava in the (Downloaded on 05/01/2022 at 09:07:42 PM) (2 of 3) [CMA-32/2020] month of January, 2017 on 10.09.2019, the applicant inquired about her claim petition through her grand son. Thereafter, the copy of the impugned award was received by the applicant on 25.11.2019 and then instant appeal has been filed on 13.12.2019. The counsel for the applicant submits that though the delay is unusual and exorbitant, however considering the backdrop of the facts, old age of the appellant and other attending circumstances, the delay may be condoned in the interest of justice.
The counsel for the appellant also submits that he has a strong case on merits, if appeal is heard on merits as the Insurance Company should have been held liable to pay the compensation awarded under the impugned award dated 23.06.2011. The findings on issue No.4 are absolutely perverse. It has been submitted that the compensation amount of Rs.45,242/- awarded in the impugned award dated 23.06.2011 has not been paid to the appellant as yet and recovery of the same from the owner/driver of the vehicle is not possible. It has been submitted that the appellant in her old age is in dire need for such compensation, which can be recovered from the Insurance Company and Insurance Company should be held liable to pay the compensation.
Such arguments on merits of appeal can be considered only on hearing the appeal on merits.
No reply to the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed by the respondents. Despite service of respondents No.1 and 2 no one has not appeared on behalf of them.
The Insurance Company has appeared through its advocate. (Downloaded on 05/01/2022 at 09:07:42 PM)
(3 of 3) [CMA-32/2020] However taking into account the facts and circumstances as mentioned hereinabove for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. This Court is of the opinion that the delay in filing the appeal deserves to be condoned in the larger interest of justice, so that the appeal may be heard on merits.
List the matter after eight weeks.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J TN/34 (Downloaded on 05/01/2022 at 09:07:42 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)