The High Court of Kerala considered an application to condone a delay of 3367 days in filing an appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. The court dismissed the application, holding that the appellants were guilty of willful laches and negligence, as ignorance of law is no excuse for such inordinate delay.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
MACA NO. 2038 OF 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 22ND POUSHA, 1943
MACA NO. 2038 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPMV 192/2003 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,PATHANAMTHITTA
APPELLANT/S:
1 SASI K. AGED 52 YEARS S/O.KITTU, BINU BHAVAN, NJAKKANAL MURI, OCHIRA VILLAGE, KARUNGAPPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 690 526. 2 SANTHAMMA W/O.SASI, BINU BHAVAN, NJAKKANAL MURI, OCHIRA VILLAGE, KARUNGAPPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 690 526. 3 SMITHA D/O.SASI, BINU BHAVAN, NJAKKANAL MURI, OCHIRA VILLAGE, KARUNGAPPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 690 526. BY ADVS. JOSEPH GEORGE P.A.REJIMON
RESPONDENT/S:
1 S.ASOKAN AGED 21 YEARS S/O.SUBRAMANI, SIVAGANGAMID ROAD, CHAMRAJPED, BANGLORE, KARNATAKA STATE, NOW RESIDING AT A.M.ROAD, MOKOKCHUNG, NAGALAND, PIN - 798 601.
2 RAMAKRISHNAN S/O.NADARAJAN, 10 MIDDLE STREET, MALABARAYANATHAM, VELLUR, SRIVAIKUNDAM, THUTHUKUDI DISTRICT, TAMILNADU, PIN - 628 601.
MACA NO. 2038 OF 2021
2
3 THE MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. BHAVANI MAIN ROAD, SALEM, TAMIL NADU, PIN - 636 001.
BY ADVS. LAL GEORGE SEBASTIAN VARGHESE(K/141/2000)
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
MACA NO. 2038 OF 2021
3
JUDGMENT
In the light of the order passed in C.M.Appln. No.1/2021,
the appeal stands dismissed.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
rkc/12.01.22
C.S.DIAS, J.
MACA No.2038 of 2021
----------------------------------------Dated this the 12th day of January, 2022
ORDER
C.M.Appln.No.1 of 2021
The application is filed to condone the delay of 3367 days in filing the appeal.
5
MACA NO. 2038 OF 2021
was received on 02.02.2021. The time period for filing the appeal was over on 27.11.2011. The petitioners belong to a family below the poverty line and they had no knowledge regarding the remedy of filing an appeal. There is no willful latches or negligence on their part. Hence, the delay may be condoned.
6
MACA NO. 2038 OF 2021
the family. The 1st petitioner is a chronic asthma patient. He, his wife and daughter were dependents of the deceased. The petitioners are having only basic education. It was only when the 1st petitioner received information on 18.01.2021 that the legal representatives of a fellow passenger, who died in the same accident had filed an appeal, they decided to file the appeal. Hence, a lenient view may be taken in the matter and the application be allowed.
“20.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
MACA NO. 2038 OF 2021
7
Even in such case the condonation of long delay should not be automatic since the accrued right or the adverse consequence to the opposite party is also to be kept in perspective. In that background while considering condonation of delay, the routine explanation would not be enough but it should be in the nature of indicating “sufficient cause” to justify the delay which will depend on the backdrop of each case and will have to be weighed carefully by the Courts based on the fact situation.
xxxxxxxxxx”.
8. In Pandlik Talam Patil vs Talgaou
Medium Project [(2008) 17 SCC 448], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:
“17. …..The evidence on record suggests neglect of its own right for long time in preferring appeals. The court cannot enquire into belated and stale claims on the ground of equity. Delay defeats equity. The court helps those who are vigilant and 'do not slumber over their rights.”
“29. 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 .”
MACA NO. 2038 OF 2021
8
[(2012) 5 SCC 157] the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held thus:
“24. What colour the expression “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 application 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” .
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and Others [(2013) 12 SCC 649] by holding that:
(i) There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration of few days, for to the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That apart,
MACA NO. 2038 OF 2021
9
the first one warrants strict approach whereas the second calls for a liberal delineation.
(ii) The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go by in the name of liberal approach.
(iii) If the explanation offered is concocted or the grounds urged in the application are fanciful, the courts should be vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily to face such a litigation.”
MACA NO. 2038 OF 2021
10
MACA NO. 2038 OF 2021
11
I hold that there is willful latches and negligence on the part of the petitioners in not filing the appeal within the prescribed time period.
In the said circumstances, I am not inclined to condone the delay of 3367 days. Resultantly the application is dismissed.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
rkc/12.01.22
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the delay of 3367 days in filing the motor accident claims appeal should be condoned.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
University of Delhi v. Union of India and othersReferred¶45
University of Delhi v. Union of India and others [2019 KHC 7261]
Pandlik Talam Patil vs Talgaou Medium ProjectReferred¶51
Pandlik Talam Patil vs Talgaou Medium Project [(2008) 17 SCC 448] · Who else cites this
Maniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal Corporation of Brihan MumbaiReferred¶57
Maniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai [(2012) 5 SCC 157] · Who else cites this
Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and OthersReferred¶60
Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and Others [(2013) 12 SCC 649] · Who else cites this
SASI K.
SANTHAMMA
SMITHA
S.ASOKAN
RAMAKRISHNAN
THE MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
C.S.DIAS
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
