1979 (4) TMI 29 - SC - Income Tax

Accident Insurance - Appeal To High Court dismissed on delay in filing Appeal - Held that - High Court s view that the lawyer s ignorance about the law was no ground for condonation of delay is not acceptable. This does not automatically secure a visa for the petitioner into this court under article 136. There must be manifest injustice or gross misappreciation or perversity in factual findings. We have examined the merits of the matter to the extent available on the record and have heard counsel for the petitioner. He has hardly convinced us that the merits of the case call for any intervention at all. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Legal rights, literacy, and processual modalities in automobile accident cases.
2. Consequences of negligence of counsel leading to delayed pursuit of remedy.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses the alarming increase in automobile accidents in India and the lack of efficient legal remedies for the victims. It emphasizes the need for a new approach to tort law, advocating for no-fault liability and simplified compensation procedures. The court highlights the importance of social justice and criticizes the negligence of authorities in ensuring road safety. The case involving a fatal accident resulting in delayed compensation illustrates the inefficiencies in the judicial process, urging for reforms to expedite claims and ensure fair compensation for victims.

2. The judgment discusses the issue of negligence by counsel, leading to a delay in filing an appeal against a compensation award. The court examines the High Court's decision to dismiss the appeal based on a technicality of delay, despite the culpability and quantum of compensation being deemed correct. It delves into the role of legal advisors and the reliance placed on their expertise by companies and individuals. The court emphasizes that genuine mistakes by counsel should be considered as sufficient cause for condonation of delay, provided there is no malice or recklessness involved. The judgment clarifies the legal position on the matter, emphasizing the importance of allowing some margin for error in legal advice.

3. The judgment concludes by stating that while reliance on legal advice is reasonable, it does not automatically warrant intervention by the court. The court must assess whether there is manifest injustice or factual misappreciation before granting special leave petitions. In this case, the court finds no grounds for intervention based on the merits presented. The judgment dismisses the special leave petitions after addressing both issues raised in the case.