Dismissed

Satyanarayan and Another v. Harisingh and Others

Rajasthan HC17 Mar 2023CMA/4276/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal condoning an 667-day delay in filing a civil miscellaneous appeal against an insurance award. The Court found the appellants were not properly informed of the proceedings and failed to obtain certified copies, rejecting their explanation of counsel misconduct.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay dismissed; appeal and pending applications dismissed.

Satyanarayan and Another Vs Harisingh and Others — Insurance | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJP/004409]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4276/2016

¶4

Satyanarayan S/o Bhanwar Lal, aged about 50 years.

¶5

Smt. Meera Devi W/o Satyanarayan, aged about 45 years All by caste Nai, R/o Mohalla Chudigaran Purani Tonk, District Tonk (Raj.)

¶6

----Appellants

¶7

Versus

¶8

Harisingh S/o Jalim Singh, by Caste Meena, Resident of Bhootiya Kheda Tikad, Tehsil Jahajpur, District Bhilwara.

¶9

Jagdish Prasad S/o Shri Virghuram by Caste Uval, Resident of House No.141, Shyam Colony Ward No.12, Shahpura, District Jaipur.

¶10

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office 72, Johri Bazar, Jaipur.

¶11

The New India Assurance Company Limited, Branch Office Transport Nagar, Japur.

¶12

Mahesh Kumar Saini S/o Chhitar Mal Saini, by Caste Mali, Resident of Police Line Ke Samne, Chhawani, Tonk.

¶13

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office Collecterate Ke Samne, Tonk.

¶14

Mod Singh @ Modu Lal S/o Ram Narayan Singh, by Caste Meena, Resident of Bhootiya Kheda Police Station Jahajpur, District Bhilwara.

¶15

----Respondents

¶16

For Appellant(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : None present

¶17

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

¶18

Order

¶19

17/03/2023

¶20

The present appeal was filed on 26.07.2016 against the award dated 24.06.2014 passed by Additional District & Session Judge, Tonk in claim case No.45/2013 whereby the insurance

[2023/RJJP/004409]

[CMA-4276/2016]

(2 of 3)

company was exonerated to pay the amount of compensation to the appellants-claimants.

¶25

The office has reported that the appeal itself is barred by 667 days.

¶26

The appellants filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay stating that appellants are illiterate and were not aware about passing of the impugned award. It is also mentioned that the counsel appearing for the appellants did not inform the appellants regarding the proceedings of the Tribunal. It is also narrated that appellants met with the present counsel and supplied him all the certified copies but the counsel informed that six certified copies are missing. It is also narrated that on 28.04.2016 appellants again met with the local counsel and supplied the six certified copies for filing the appeal. It is further mentioned that on 30.04.2016 the appellants gave other six certified copies to the counsel but the record of file was not given by the counsel appearing before the Tribunal. On 03.05.2016 the appellants took the complete file from the counsel and on 10.05.2016 the same was provided to the present counsel therefore, the delay caused in filing the present appeal is bonafide and the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay may kindly be allowed.

¶27

The appellants have miserably failed to explain the delay of 667 days in filing the appeal. Though appellants have taken the plea that they were not aware about the decision of the learned Tribunal but that plea itself is not satisfactory. Appellants have also tried to swift their burden contrary towards their counsel. It cannot be presumed that the counsel appearing before the

[2023/RJJP/004409]

[CMA-4276/2016]

(3 of 3)

Tribunal was not cooperating. Further, the appellants could have applied for obtaining the certified copies of the said award and record for filing the appeal before this Court. But they failed to obtain the copies of the award and the record from the Tribunal. The reasons mentioned by the appellants are not at all satisfactory therefore, on the ground of inordinate delay in filing the appeal, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is dismissed.

¶32

The appeal as well as all the pending applications also stands dismissed.

¶33

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶34

Dharmendra Rakhecha/715

Satyanarayan and Another v. Harisingh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satyanarayan and Another v. Harisingh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Ummed Devi W/O Hansraj Vs Gopal S/O Ganpatram

Kasana Ram Vs Hindu Singh and Anr.

Imran Kha Vs State of Rajasthan

Deepak Singh Vs R S R T C Jaipur and Ors.

Naresh Kumar and Another Vs the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others

Chaturbhuj Vs Insaar and Others