Dismissed

Tabbasur Hussain v. the New India Insurance Company Ltd.

Uttarakhand HC16 Dec 2021AO/158/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed an application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) award. The 441-day delay was due to the appellant being arrayed as a respondent in a connected appeal. The court held the delay was unexplained and the appeal was not maintainable.

What did the court decide?

Application for condonation of delay dismissed; appeal dismissed as not maintainable; AO No. 62 of 2018 listed for final disposal.

SL. No	Date	Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures	COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS
			CLMA No. 5127 of 2019 CLMA No. 5128 of 2019 In AO No. 158 of 2019 With AO No. 62 of 2018 Sh r i S.K. Mish r a, J. Heard Mr. G.C. Lakhchaura, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. T.A. Khan, the learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Divya Jaiswal, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company and also Mr. Tarun Pande, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. I.P. Kohli, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company in connected AO. The is an application being CLMA No. 5128 of 2019 for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal against the award passed by the learned Judge, MACT, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar. There is 441 days’ delay. The award has been passed on 31.10.2017 and against such award claimants have preferred the appeal for enhancement bearing AO No. 62 of 2018 which has already been admitted and has been attached to this brief. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that when the award was delivered, the petitioner happens to be the owner of the vehicle, was in disability, as he suffered multiple fractures in road accident. However, the main contention raised in this appeal before this Court by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the date of passing of the award against him was not communicated to him by his counsel. It is settled principle of law that for the fault of counsel, the party should not be allowed

SL.
No

Date

Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures

COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS

CLMA No. 5127 of 2019
CLMA No. 5128 of 2019
In
AO No. 158 of 2019
With
AO No. 62 of 2018
Sh r i S.K. Mish r a, J.
Heard Mr. G.C. Lakhchaura, the learned
counsel for the appellant and Mr. T.A. Khan,
the learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms.
Divya Jaiswal, the learned counsel for the
Insurance Company and also Mr. Tarun Pande,
the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.
I.P. Kohli, the learned counsel for the Insurance
Company in connected AO.
The is an application being CLMA No. 5128
of 2019 for condonation of delay in preferring
the appeal against the award passed by the
learned Judge, MACT, Rudrapur, Udham Singh
Nagar. There is 441 days’ delay. The award has
been passed on 31.10.2017 and against such
award claimants have preferred the appeal for
enhancement bearing AO No. 62 of 2018 which
has already been admitted and has been
attached to this brief.
The learned counsel for the appellant
submits that when the award was delivered, the
petitioner happens to be the owner of the
vehicle, was in disability, as he suffered
multiple fractures in road accident. However,
the main contention raised in this appeal before
this Court by the learned counsel for the
appellant is that the date of passing of the
award against him was not communicated to
him by his counsel.
It is settled principle of law that for the
fault of counsel, the party should not be allowed

to suffer. It is also contended by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that he could know
about the impugned award only after he received notice in AO No. 62 of 2018 where he
has been arrayed as respondent. The record of
AO No. 62 of 2018 shows that he has been
served with the notice on 13.03.2018.
Thereafter, also there is a delay of one year that has not been explained validly in this case. Hence, this Court constrained to dismiss
the application for condonation of delay.
Accordingly, the delay condonation application is dismissed. Since, the appeal has been filed with delay of 441 days, the appeal is not maintainable.
Hence, the appeal is dismissed. List AO No. 62 of 2018 on 03.03.2022 for final disposal.
( S.K. Mishr a, J.) PV 1 6 .1 2 .2 0 2 1

to suffer. It is also contended by the learned

counsel for the petitioner that he could know

about the impugned award only after he
received notice in AO No. 62 of 2018 where he

has been arrayed as respondent. The record of

AO No. 62 of 2018 shows that he has been

served
with
the
notice
on
13.03.2018.

Thereafter, also there is a delay of one year
that has not been explained validly in this case.
Hence, this Court constrained to dismiss

the
application
for
condonation
of
delay.

Accordingly, the delay condonation application
is dismissed.
Since, the appeal has been filed with delay
of 441 days, the appeal is not maintainable.

Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
List AO No. 62 of 2018 on 03.03.2022 for
final disposal.

( S.K. Mishr a, J.)
PV
1 6 .1 2 .2 0 2 1

Tabbasur Hussain v. the New India Insurance Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tabbasur Hussain v. the New India Insurance Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ratan Singh Vs Nakli Singh

Assistant Commissioner, Entertainment Tax Vs Bablu

Sumedh Saini Vs Assistant Collector 1ST Class Haridwar

Prem Singh Vs Smt. Pushpa Gururani

Rai Bahadur Narain Singh Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. Vs Presiding Officer Labour Court Haridwar District Haridwar

Samta Yog Ashram Trust Vs Jagdish Kumar Kapoor