Allowed

Sanju & Ors. v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

Delhi HC14 Nov 2024W.P.(C)/6559/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners appealed the NDDLSA's rejection of their compensation claim solely due to limitation. The High Court held that the limitation period must exclude the COVID-19 suspension period as per Supreme Court law.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 14 November 2022 set aside and matter remanded to NDDLSA for fresh consideration in light of the extension of limitation.

Sanju & Ors. Vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr. — Consumer Protection | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~25

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 6559/2023

¶4

SANJU & ORS. .....Petitioners

¶5

Through: Mr. Umesh Kumar, Advocate.

¶6

versus

¶7

STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Mayank Negi, Advocate for R-2.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 14.11.2024

¶11

The Petitioners are family members of Late Sh. Santosh Kumar, who passed away in an unfortunate road accident on 17^th March, 2018. On 10^th September, 2018, an un-traced Detailed Accident Report¹ was accepted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal² and liberty was granted to the Petitioners to approach the New Delhi District Legal Services Authority³ for grant of compensation under the Victim Compensation Scheme. The untraced DAR was also accepted by the Metropolitan Magistrate on 5^th October, 2018 and again liberty was granted to the Petitioners to approach the NDDLSA for grant of compensation as per law.

¶12

On 5^th January, 2022, the Petitioners filed an application under Section 357A (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973⁴ before the

¶13

1 “DAR”

¶14

2 “MACT”

¶15

3 “NDDLSA”

¶16

4 “CrPC”

¶17

This is a digitally signed order.

¶18

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/11/2024 at 12:59:50

¶19

NDDLSA for grant of compensation. However, the Petitioners’ request was rejected vide order dated 14^th November, 2022 on the ground of limitation as provided in the Point 17, Part-I of the Delhi Victim Compensation Scheme, 2018 - which is set as three years from the date of occurrence of the offence or conclusion of trial. Aggrieved, the Petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking quashing of the said order passed by NDDLSA.

¶20

The Petitioners contend that while passing the impugned order, the NDDLSA failed to consider that the period of limitation for the Petitioners’ claim ended in 2021 during the COVID-19 pandemic, when the limitation period was suspended from 15^th March, 2020 till 28^th February, 2022, for all proceedings, applications, suits and appeal by the Supreme Court in the judgment in Suo Moto writ petition (C) No. 3/2020 titled In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation⁵ .

¶21

Therefore, the Petitioners urge that if period of limitation is construed form the date of order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate – i.e., 05^th October, 2018 their application cannot be deemed as time barred. Further it is contended that even if there was some bona fide delay on the part of the Petitioners’ in approaching NDDLSA, it ought to have been condoned by them since the Delhi Victim Compensation Scheme, 2018 is a beneficial scheme which should not be denied to the Petitioners on the ground of limitation.

¶22

The Court has considered the contentions of the parties. The Supreme Court in In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation has categorically held that in computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal,

¶23

This is a digitally signed order.

¶24

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/11/2024 at 12:59:50

¶25

application or proceedings during the period from 15^th March 2020 to 28^th February, 2022 shall stand excluded on account of the COVID-19 pandemic. Thus, it is clear that the Petitioners’ claim for grant of compensation ought to have been considered by NDDLSA in light of the above decision and should not have been dismissed on the grounds of limitation.

¶26

In light of the above, the present writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 14^th November, 2022 passed by Respondent No. 2 – NDDLSA in file No. NDDLSA/06/SPL/Jan/2022, FIR No. l13/18, u/s 279/304-A IPC registered with PS Vasant Kunj South, New Delhi, is set aside and the matter is remanded back to Respondent No. 2 - NDDLSA for fresh consideration, in accordance with law.

¶27

It is made clear that Respondent No. 2 - NDDLSA shall consider the Petitioners’ request in light of the observations made hereinabove.

¶28

With the above directions, the present writ petition is disposed of.

¶29

SANJEEV NARULA, J

¶30

NOVEMBER 14, 2024 as

¶31

5 (2022) 3 SCC 117

¶32

This is a digitally signed order.

¶33

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/11/2024 at 12:59:50

Sanju & Ors. v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanju & Ors. v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms Educational and Welfare Trust Vs Union of India & Ors.

Ajay Kumar Vs Office of the District and Session Judge Hq & Anr.

District Kabaddi Association Rohtak & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Rizwan Ahmed & Ors. Vs Airtel Tower Department & Ors.

Monu Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.

Gaurav Dhama Vs Director General Central Industrial Security Force & Ors.

Sh Sunil Kumar Sharma Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Anr.

Muzaffar Ahmad and Anr. Vs Union of India and Anr.

Ms Educational and Welfare Trust Vs Union of India & Ors.

District Kabaddi Association Rohtak & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

M/S Swastik Oil Products Mfg. Navsari (P) Ltd. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Prem Wati and Others Vs Gnctd and Others & Ors.

Arpit Bhargava Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Irshad Khan Vs Cpio, Municipal Corporation of Delhi