Negligent Litigant Who Didn't Enquire About Status Of Case Not Entitled To Condonation Of Delay: Allahabad High Court
Upasna Agrawal
28 Oct 2024 11:10 AM IST
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a First Appeal From Order (FAFO) under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 filed with a delay of 3107 days as the appellant, sole proprietor of the transport company, failed to inquire about the status of the case.
Justice Rajnish Kumar held that
“A litigant, who is such negligent that he/she would not inquire for the status of case for such a long period in which the allegations are against him/her and he/she has put in appearance and filed written statement and documents, cannot be said to was prevented from sufficient cause from preferring appeal in time because if he/she has not pursued the case diligently and has been negligent in doing so cannot be said to have been prevented, therefore the grounds taken are nothing but excuses for such a long delay. Such a litigant is not entitled for any discretion of Court.”
Appellant, Transport Company, filed a First Appeal From Order under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against order of the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/ District Judge, Lucknow under Sections 165, 166 and Section 140 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.
The limitation period to file an appeal under Section 173 of the MV Act is 90 days which is condonable by the Court provided sufficient cause is shown.
A delay of 3107 days was reported in the appeal filed by the appellant. Appellant pleaded that the counsel had not informed about the decision in the claim petition and the person doing pairvi on behalf of the appellant had passed away 4 years ago. Thereafter, a second affidavit was filed pleading that the appellant is a “Pardanashin Lady” and since her husband had died during COVID, she was in trauma and therefore, there was delay in filing the appeal.
The Court observed that the impugned order was passed 6 years prior to the death of appellant's (proprietor) husband and 4 years from the death. It was further observed that the pariokar would only be acting on the instructions of the appellant and the appellant was negligent in doing the pairvi of the case.
The Court observed that since it was convinced that the cause for delay condonation was not sufficient, there was no need for calling for objections from the other side.
In Maniben Devraj Shah Vs. Municipal Corpn. of Brihan Mumbai, the Supreme Court had held that where the explanation for delay condonation is found to be concocted and the applicant has been negligent in pursuing his case, the delay may not be condoned.
In Sheo Raj Singh & Others Vs. Union of India and Another, the Supreme Court held that the difference between “excuses” and “explanation” is considered while condoning delay. The Supreme Court held that
“An “excuse” is often offered by a person to deny responsibility and consequences when under attack. It is sort of a defensive action. Calling something as just an “excuse” would imply that the explanation proffered is believed not to be true. Thus said, there is no formula that caters to all situations and, therefore, each case for condonation of delay based on existence or absence of sufficient cause has to be decided on its own facts. At this stage, we cannot but lament that it is only excuses, and not explanations, that are more often accepted for condonation of long delays to safeguard public interest from those hidden forces whose sole agenda is to ensure that a meritorious claim does not reach the higher courts for adjudication.”
The appellant had relied on N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy, where the Supreme Court held that limitation should not destroy the rights of the parties but are meant to “see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly.”
Justice Kumar held that the appellant had failed to show any sufficient ground for condonation of delay of 3107 days. Holding that the explanation given by the appellant was a concocted story, the Court dismissed the appeal.
Case Title: Ms. Supreme Transport Company, Lucknow Thru. Proprietor, Smt. Shayaka Khan v. Smt. Suman Devi And Another [FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER DEFECTIVE No. - 129 of 2024]
