Partly allowed

Bacho Devi and Ors. v. Baljit Singh and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Mar 2023FAO/2799/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed an application to restore a dismissed appeal. It dismissed an application for condoning a delayed filing of the appeal and finally dismissed the appeal against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award, finding the witness testimony was fabricated.

What did the court decide?

Application for restoration allowed; application for condonation of delay dismissed; main appeal dismissed. Pending applications disposed of.

Bacho Devi and Ors. Vs Baljit Singh and Anr. — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2023)

¶1

Page 1 of 4

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

112 FAO-2799-2019 (O&M) Date of decision: 02.03.2023

¶4

Bacho Devi & Others ...Appellant(s) Vs. Baljit Singh & Another ...Respondent(s)

¶5

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

¶6

Present:Mr. Vikas Lochab, Advocate for the appellants.

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

CM-3627-CII-2023

This is an application under Order 41 Rule 19 read with

¶11

Section 151 CPC for restoration of the appeal which was dismissed vide order dated 06.02.2023 for want of prosecution.

¶12

For the reasons stated in the application, the same is

¶13

allowed and appeal is restored to its original number.

¶14

CM-9634-CII-2019

¶15

This is an application under Section 151 CPC seeking exemption from filing typed copy of Award dated 07.07.2014. After going through the contents of the application, the same is allowed subject to all just exceptions.

¶16

SUNENA 2023.03.13 11:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

Page 2 of 4

¶18

CM-9636-CII-2019

¶19

This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation

¶20

Act for condonation of delay of 1609 days in filing the appeal.

¶21

Learned counsel for the applicant/appellant seeks condonation of inordinate and extraordinary delay of 1609 days in filing the appeal on the ground that as per judgment in “N. Balakrishanan Vs. M. Krishnamurthi” 1999 (1) PLR 462 it has been held that a sufficient cause should receive a liberal construction.

¶22

Reason cited in present Application is that the applicant-appellant did not have knowledge of limitation for filing the appeal and therefore, delay of 1609 days has been occasioned. Further, in Para 4 it has been mentioned that due to above said reasons, delay of 1855 days in filing present appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate. However, in the prayer clause it is prayed that delay of 1609 days in filing the present appeal may be condoned.

¶23

I find sufficient cause is not made out to condone such inordinate and extraordinary delay of 1609 days. Application accordingly, stands dismissed.

¶24

MAIN CASE

¶25

Present appeal has been filed by the claimants against dismissal of their claim petition by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonepat (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Tribunal”) vide Award dated 07.07.2014 passed in MACT Petition No.147 of 2011/2012 filed under

¶26

SUNENA 2023.03.13 11:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶27

Page 3 of 4

¶28

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). Claimants are wife and four major children of deceased-Panchi Shah.

¶29

It is the pleaded case of the appellants that deceasedPanchi Shah had died due to injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 16.06.2011 due to rash and negligent driving of canter bearing registration No.HR-69A-4759 being driven and owned by respondent No.1 and insured by respondent No.2.

¶30

Learned counsel for the appellants inter alia submits;

¶31

a) that their claim petition has been dismissed only on

¶32

the reason that claimants could not prove the accident in question;

¶33

b) that while passing the impugned Award, learned Tribunal has overlooked testimony of eyewitness PW1-Arun Parshad.

¶34

No other argument is made on behalf of the appellants.

¶35

I have heard learned counsel for the appellants.

¶36

Perusal of record of the case shows that PW1-Arun Parshad in his examination-in-chief has stated that accident in question was caused due to rash and negligent driving of above said canter. However, in his cross-examination, the said eyewitness has stated that neither he saw the driver, nor the vehicle in question, and he was actually not eyewitness. PW1 has further, admitted that he was disclosed number of the said canter by relatives of the appellants.

¶37