Lawyer's Default Sufficient Cause To Condone Delay In The Absence Of Willful Negligence On Litigant's Part: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently observed that default on the part of the lawyer is a sufficient cause to condone the delay as long as there are no willful latches and negligence on the part of the petitioner.

Justice C.S. Dias added that the parties should not suffer for the inaction, omission or misdemeanour of his counsel while adjudicating on a petition filed for setting aside an order passed by Motor Vehicles Accidents Tribunal.

"The Courts have been reminded that a party who, as per the present adversarial legal system, has selected his advocate, briefed him and paid his fees can remain supremely confident that his lawyer will look after his interest and such an innocent party who has done everything in his power and expected of him, should not suffer for the inaction, deliberate omission or misdemeanour of his counsel."

The petitioner had filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation from the respondents on account of injuries sustained to him in an accident.

However, this was dismissed by the Tribunal for non-prosecution, and the restoration petition was also dismissed without considering the application in its proper perspective as the petitioner was under the bonafide belief that his counsel was diligently prosecuting the claim petition.

Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Advocate R. V. Sreejith, contended that he had entrusted the matter to his counse and reposed full faith and confidence in his counsel and believed that the case would be properly contested. After learning that the case was dismissed for default, he filed applications to restore the claim petition and to condone the delay of 519 days in filing the restoration petition. 

The petitioner relied on a number of Apex Court decisions where it was held that while construing "sufficient cause", the Court should take a liberal approach, mainly when there is no negligence, inaction or malafides against the litigant. He, therefore, argued that the impugned order ought to be set aside.

However, the counsel appearing for the third respondent, Advocate V P K Panikar, contended that there there is willful latches and negligence on the part of the petitioner in conducting the claim petition and, if allowed, would cause severe prejudice to the third respondent. 

The Court, referring to the decision in Saramma Scaria and others vs Mathai and another, observed that the Motor Vehicles Accidents Tribunal should not mechanically dismiss the claim petitions as they have a duty to render justice to the unfortunate victims of road accidents as well as claimants of the deceased. Furthermore, the Tribunal must arrive at a finding that there were contumacious latches and negligence on the part of the claimant in prosecuting the claim petition.

The Court pointed out that the evidence adduced substantiates that the petitioner was bed-ridden from the injuries he had sustained from the accident. He acted on the bonafide belief that the counsel he engaged was properly contesting the case. Therefore, Justice Dias observed that the parties should not suffer for his counsel's inaction, omission or misdemeanour.

Referring to a number of Apex Court decision on this matter, the Court held that a liberal, justice-oriented, justifiable and reasonable approach should be adopted while considering the matters of condoning the delay in petitions. 

The Court thereby allowed the petition and set aside the impugned order.

Case Title: Rajesh Chandran v. M.R. Gopalakrishnan Nair & ors. 

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 394

Click Here To Read/Download The Order