9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Appeal against Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award, Condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, Negligence in filing appeal, Judicial discretion in condoning delay, Negligence in contesting the case before the tribunal, Entitlement to compensation.
Analysis: 1. The appellant, an insurer of motor vehicles, filed an appeal against the award of the Second Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The appeal was filed after the prescribed period, leading to the need for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 2. The Court emphasized the requirement to show sufficient cause for the delay in filing an appeal, highlighting that negligence in taking necessary steps should not be the reason for the delay. The judicial discretion must be exercised in the interest of justice, irrespective of the party's nature (government, corporate, or private). 3. While considering negligence in this case, it was noted that the certified copy of the judgment was obtained within the limitation period. However, delays occurred during inter-departmental consultations between the Regional and Branch Offices, leading to a delayed decision to file the appeal. The appellant's status as a public sector company was considered, imposing a higher duty of care on its officers. 4. The Court observed that despite the negligence in contesting the case before the tribunal, the focus was on the delay in preferring the appeal. The negligence in contesting the claim was deemed extraneous to the determination of the delay in filing the appeal. 5. The appellant's argument regarding inefficiency in various aspects of life and the contention that the vehicle causing the accident was not insured with them were considered. However, the Court found that condoning the delay would cause more injustice, especially when the claimant was entitled to compensation. 6. Ultimately, the Court concluded that the delay in deciding to file the appeal was due to routine inter-departmental consultations and the lack of a clear explanation for the negligence that led to a delay of about two months. As a result, the Court dismissed the Misc. Case, finding no sufficient cause to condone the delay, and no costs were awarded.
|
