Division BencK v. CLAIMANT

l.^Kapil S/o Shri Mukhiram Rajak, aged about 25 years, R/o Lalpur, Tahsil - Bemetara, District - Durg (C.G.) PRTVER 2^/Ajay S/o Raghunandan Singh, aged about 25 years, 3y Pratap Kumar S/o Vishnu Prasad Verma, aged about 35 years, Both are R/o Ward No. 18, Kailash Nagar, Beergaon, District - Raipur (C.G.) APPEAL VALUED AT Rs. 4,32,844/- COURT FEEAFFDCED AT Rs. \c>'f^ ^ B «^ ^WJ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHARSABRE^ MISC. APPEAL (C) No. 362/2012 APPELLANT Oriental Corupany Limited Insurance RESPONDENTS VERSUS Kapil and others >'-. Present: Mr. Sourabh Shanna, Counsel for the appellant. Mr. Samir Singh, Counsel for the respondent No. 1 _•"->_ MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLESACT. 1988. O R A L-0 R D E R (Passed on 18/02/2013) Heard. This is an appeal filed by the appellant/Insurance (2) Company under Section 173 ofthe MotorVehicles Act, 1988 (in short "the Act") against the award dated 24/11/2011 passed by Additional Motor Accident Claiins Tribunal, (in short "the Tribunal") in Bemetara, District Durg (C.G.) Claim Case No. 34/2011. (3) By the impugned award the leamed Tribunal while partly aUowing the clairu petition awarded a suru of Rs. 4,32,844/- to the claimant-Kapil (respondent No. 1 herein) for the injury sugtained by him in vehicular accident. Also heard on I.A. NQ. 01, an application made by the (4) appellant seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The appeal isbarred by30 days. ° So the question that arises for consideration in this (5) appeal is whether any case is made out for condonation of delay ofaround 30 days in filing this appeal? (6) unexplained. In the first place, It the ^ delay of 30 days is totally is indeed inordinate and thus cannot be • ^ condoned for want of any sufficient ground. Secondly, when the Act has prescribed 90 days to file an appeal, then there was absolutely no reason as to why the appeUant waited for 30 days to file an appeal. Thirdly, the appeBant is not a rustic villager, who is not conversant with the legal intricacies of limitation issue prescribed under the Law of Limitation. ''">. I am rather constrained to observe that the appellant (7) being a Company guided by e^perienced OfBcers including law managers and legal advisers and being quite aware of the provisions relating to limitation for filing the appeal in the High Court, yet they ffled the appeal invariably beyond the period of limitation. A period of 90 days is more than sufficient for a professional Company to process any appeal and file within 90 days which does not require any special skill or/and expertise in its preparation. To say the least, it appears to be a clear case of either casualness or negligence on the part of those who are responsible to file appeals in Courts on behatf of appellant-Company. If the steps are takenimmediately after the award is passed, within 90 days froin the date pf the award and further : adding the days spent in obtaining certified copy of the award, which may vary from case to case, then the appeal can always be filed in time with the use of hyge expertise and infrastructure available with the appellant(Company). I am, therefore, not at aU satisfied with the usual and casual statements made in the application that due to not being able to pbtain necessaiy sanction, the delay occurred in filing the appeal. In view of foregoing discussions, I am of the opinion (8) that no case is niade qut on facts for condonation of delay in filing . the condonation of delay in filing the appeal is thus liable tp be appeal. The (I.A. No. application 01) dismissed. Itis accordingly, disruissed. As a consequence, the appeal too is dismissed as being (9) ban-ed by tirue. Since the .appeal is being dismissed as barred by time and hence, it is not necessaiy for him to ^ ^ examine the controversy involved in this appeal on merits. The appeal thus fails and is disraissed as barred by time. (10) Even then, I perused the record of the case as also the impugned award with a view to find out as to whether any case is made out for entertaining the appeal, because I do not wish to be too technical in disrnissal of appeal on the ground of limitation. Having so perused, I find that no case even on facts and evidence ismade out by the appellant. It 13/12/2010 (11) claimant/respondeht Nw^l-Kapil whUe going to his village Lalpur Road on motorcycle along with his brother, when they injury case. On reached near Khandsara tuming, a Tata Sumo Victor (offending vehicle) bearing registration No. CG-04/H/2493 which is coming from opposite side driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 2 hit the motorcycle ofthe respondentNo. l.Duetothtshit,respondentNo. 1 and his brother feU down, respondent No. 1 suffered serious injuries so mych so ttiat his right leg had to be amputated below the knee. At the time of accident, the clainiant was aged about 25 years and was doing the work'of motor winding and used to earn Rs. 3,OOQ/- per inonth i.e. Rs. 36,OQO/- per year. The Tribunal after' deducting 50% towards permanent disability, determined the dependency @ Rs. 18,OOQ/- per year and by applying the multiplier of 18, awarded a sum of Rs. 3,24,000/- towards pennanent disability. In addition, a sum ofRs. 5,000/- towards pain & suffering on aecount of serious injury, Rs. 1,00,844/- towards medical expenses and t<L Rs. 3,000/- towards special diet & attendant. Thus a total corupensatipn • of Rs.. 4,32,844/- has been awarded to the clairaant along with interest @ 6% per annum frpm. the date of filing ofclaim petition till its realization. (12) the amount of compensation and there is no ground made out by the appellant for interfering with the impugned award I, therefore, find that the Tribynal has rightly assessed . , fpr reducing the compensatfon awarded by the Trihunal tp the clainiant. . . • ^yo (13) There is np other argument urged by leamed counsel for the appellant to attack the iinpugned award, except what is taken not of above. In the light of the foregoing discussion, the appeal is (14) found to be totally devoid of merits. It fails and is accordingly dismissed as tiine barred as well as on merits. (15) So far as the cross-objection filed by the respondent the same is barred by No. 1/claimant is concerned, limitation i.e. it is filed after 34 days. In my opinion, it is found to be devpid of any raerit apd hence no case for any further enhancement in the oompensation than what has been awarded is mac^e out. The cross-objection filed by the claimant/respondent No. 1 claiming enhancement in the conipensation is accordingly alsp rejected. (16) No cost(s). . : , , ,| (Abhay Manonar~Sapre)~ JUDGE <-.. Tiwari