Bhuri Bai Vs Khursheed Khan

¶1

1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

MAC No. 323 of 2024

¶5

1 - Bhuri Bai Wd/o Late Sonsay Patel Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Khamhariya, REKHAPolice Station Sarsinwa, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) (Claimant) SINGH 2 - Sunny Kumar Patel S/o Late Sonsay Patel Aged About 13 Years (Minor Represented Through Mother Smt. Bhuri Bai) R/o Village Khamhariya, Police Station Sarsinwa, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) (Claimant)

¶6

3 - Shambhu Prasad S/o Late Chintaram Aged About 76 Years R/o Village Khamhariya, Police Station Sarsinwa, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) (Claimant)

¶7

... Appellants

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - Khursheed Khan S/o Shri Diwan Khan Aged About 26 Years R/o Block No.B, Flat No.302, Vidhan Sabha Road, Ashoka Ratan V.I.P. Estate, Khamhardih, Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) (Driver Of Vehicle Truck C.G. 04 My 5614)

¶10

2 - Ashish Agrawal S/o Shri Ishwar Chand Agrawal Aged About 34 Years ( M/s Urja Logistics ) R/o Block No.B, Flat No.302, Vidhan Sabha Road, Ashoka Ratan V.I.P. Estate, Khamhardih, Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) (Owner Of Vehicle Truck C.G. 04 My 5614)

¶11

3 - The United India Insurance Company Limited Through The Branch Manager, Address- Branch Office Micro Office Paras Complex Estate, In Front Of Bank Of India Gurdwara Station Road, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) (Insurer Of Vehicle Truck C.G. 04 My 5614)

¶12

... Respondent(s)

¶13

For Appellants/Claimants	: Mr. Palash Agrawal, Advocate
For respondent No.3	: Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, Adv.
For other respondents	: None appears though served

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶15

18.02.2026

¶16

Heard on I.A. No. 01/2024, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

¶17

This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 assailing the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) in Claim Case No.54/2022 dated

¶18

2

¶19

28.03.2023 whereby, the learned Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.13,69,040/with interest @ 7.5% on account of death of Sonsay Patel in a motor accident.

¶20

The claimants have preferred this appeal with delay of 216 days.

¶21

Learned counsel for the claimants would submit that the award was passed on 28.03.2023 and this appeal has been preferred on 05.02.2024. He would contend that the claimants were not aware of law of limitation, therefore, they could not prefer appeal within a prescribed period of limitation. He would pray to condone the delay.

¶22

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 would oppose. He would submit that the claimants failed to explain sufficient cause in the application for condonation of delay. He would contend that the application (I.A. No. 01/2024) deserves to be rejected.

¶23

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the application for condonation of delay with utmost circumspection.

¶24

The claimants have taken a plea that the claimants had no knowledge of law of limitation. It is well-settled principle of law that ignorance of law is not an excuse to condone the delay. Further, the claimants have not mentioned the dates as to when they applied for certified copy of award; when it was delivered and when they approached their counsel, thus, in my opinion, the claimants failed to explain the delay part properly.

¶25

Law as regards scope and jurisdiction of the Court in the matter of condonation of delay under Section 5 of Limitation Act is well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments and some judgments are as under :

¶26

(i) In the case of Ramlal Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR

¶27

3

¶28

1962 SC 361, Hon. Supreme Court in para 7 has held as

¶29

under:-

¶30

“7. In construing Section 5 (of the Limitation Act) it is relevant to bear in mind two important considerations. The first consideration is that the expiration of the period of limitation prescribed for making an appeal gives rise to a right in favour of the decree-holder to treat the decree as binding between the parties. In other words, when the period of limitation prescribed has expired the decree-holder has obtained a benefit under the law of limitation to treat the decree as beyond challenge, and this legal right which has accrued to the decree-holder by lapse of time should not be light-heartedly disturbed. The other consideration which cannot be ignored is that if sufficient cause for excusing delay is shown discretion is given to the court to condone delay and admit the appeal. This discretion has been deliberately conferred on the court in order that judicial power and discretion in that behalf should be exercised to advance substantial justice.”

¶31

(ii) Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P.K. Ramachandran Vs. State of Kerala, (1997) 7 SCC 556 , has held in para 6 as under:-

¶32

“6. law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes and the courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds.”

¶33

(iii) As regards meaning, scope and rationale of the law of limitation, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pundlilk Jalam Patil (Dead) by Lrs., Vs. Executive Engineer, Jalgaon Medium Project and another, (2008) 17 SCC 448 has held as under:

¶34

“26. Basically the laws of Limitation are founded on public policy. In Halsbury’s Laws of England,4th Ed., Vol.28,p.266,para 605, the policy of the Limitation Acts is laid down as follows:

¶35

“605. Policy of the Limitation Acts.The courts have expressed at least three different reasons supporting the existence of statutes of limitation, namely,

¶36

(i) that long dormant claims have more of cruelty than

¶37

4

¶38

justice in them,

¶39

(ii) that a defendant might have lost the evidence to dispute the stated claim,

¶40

(iii) that persons with good causes of actions should pursue them with reasonable diligence.”

¶41

Statutes of limitation are sometimes described as ‘statutes of peace’. An unlimited and perpetual threat of limitation creates insecurity and uncertainty; some kind of limitation is essential for public order. This court in Rajender Singh and others vs. Santa Singh and others [(1973) 2 SCC 705] has observed : (SCC p.712, para 18)

¶42

“18. The object of law of Limitation is to prevent disturbance and deprivation of what may have been acquired in equity and justice by long enjoyment or what may have been lost by a party’s own inaction, negligence or laches”.

¶43

In Motichand vs. Munshi [AIR 1970 SC 898], this court observed that this principle is based on the maxim “interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium, that is, the interest of the State requires that there should be end to litigation but at the same time law of Limitation are a means to ensuring private justice suppressing fraud and perjury, quickening diligence and preventing oppression.

¶44

It needs no restatement at our hands that the object for fixing time limit for litigation is based on public policy fixing a life span for legal remedy for the purpose of general welfare. They are meant to see that the parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but avail their legal remedies promptly. Salmond in his jurisprudence states that the laws come to the assistance of the vigilant and not of the sleepy.

¶45

(iv) Hon. Supreme Court in a recent decision Maniben Devraj Shah Vs. Municipal Corporation of Brihan, Mumbai, (2012) 5 SCC 157 has held in para 24 as under:-

¶46

“24. What colour the expression

¶47

5

¶48

“sufficient cause” would get in the factual matrix of a given case would largely depend on bona fide nature of the explanation. If the Court finds that there has been no negligence on the part of the applicant and the cause shown for the delay does not lack bona fides, then it may condone the delay. If, on the other hand, the explanation given by the applicant is found to be concocted or he is thoroughly negligent in prosecuting his cause, then it would be a legitimate exercise of discretion not to condone the delay.”

¶49

9 . The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pathapati Subba Reddy

¶50

(Died) by LRs. & Others vs. The Special Deputy Collector (LA) reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 513 : 2024 4 SCR 241 : 2024 INSC 286, in para

¶51

26, summarized the judgments and the same is reproduced herein-below:-

¶52

“ 26. On a harmonious consideration of the provisions of the law,as aforesaid, and the law laid down by this Court, it is evident that:

¶53

(i) Law of limitation is based upon public policy that there should be an end to litigation by forfeiting the right to remedy rather than the right itself;

¶54

(ii) A right or the remedy that has not been exercised or availed of for a long time must come to an end or cease to exist after a fixed period of time;

¶55

(iii) The provisions of the Limitation Act have to be construed differently, such as Section 3 has to be construed in a strict sense whereas Section 5 has to be construed liberally;

¶56

(iv) In order to advance substantial justice, though liberal approach, justice-oriented approach or cause of substantial justice may be kept in mind but the same cannot be used to defeat the substantial law of limitation contained in Section 3 of the Limitation Act;

¶57

(v) Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is established for various factors such as, where there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence;

¶58

6

¶59

(vi) Merely some persons obtained relief in similar matter, it does not mean that others are also entitled to the same benefit if the court is not satisfied with the cause shown for the delay in filing the appeal;

¶60

(vii) Merits of the case are not required to be considered in condoning the delay; and

¶61

(viii) Delay condonation application has to be decided on the parameters laid down for condoning the delay and condoning the delay for the reason that the conditions have been imposed, tantamounts to disregarding the statutory provision.”

¶62

10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pathapati Subba Reddy

¶63

(supra) further held that the phrases ‘liberal approach’, ‘justice-oriented approach’ and ‘cause for the advancement of substantial justice’ cannot be employed to defeat the law of limitation so as to allow stale matters or as a matter of fact dead matters to be revived and re-opened by taking aid of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

¶64

11. Considering inordinate delay of 216 days and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, I do not find any good ground to allow the application for condonation of delay, accordingly, I.A. No. 01/2024 is hereby rejected . Consequently, appeal also fails and is hereby dismissed .

¶65

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶66

Rekha

Bhuri Bai v. Khursheed Khan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhuri Bai v. Khursheed Khan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manrakhan Lal Khandey Vs Managing Director

Ravi Kumar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Moolchand Kaushal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Ranjana Bharti Vs Agam Das

Magma H.D.I. General Insurance Company Limited Vs Deepak Banchhor

Smt. Usha Upadhyay Vs Smt. Radha Bai Yadav