M/s Parkash Goods Carrier Pvt Ltd v. United India Insurance Company & Ors.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Sanjeev Patiyal, Advocate for the appellant. JASWANT SINGH, J Appellant-owner of the Truck bearing No.PB 10 AP 5643 (for short “offending vehicle”) has challenged the impugned award dated 7.10.2003 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barnala (for short “the Tribunal”) after a period of almost nine years whereby the recovery rights of awarded amount was given to the Insurance Company-respondent No.1 herein. Brief facts of the case are that Sandeep Kumar Sharma/claimant-respondent No.2 filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Act”) on account of death of her wife Pratibha Sharma in a Motor Vehicular Sharma in FAO No.4964 of 2012 (O&M) #2# which three other persons namely Vinod Kumar, Pardeep Kumar and Laxmi Kant, who were travelling in a Car No.CH 01-E 1005, also died. After notice, respondent No.1-driver as well as respondent No.3- Insurance Company filed their separate written statements. After hearing both the sides, learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition i.e

7.6.2002 to the claimant-respondent No.2 herein. It was held by the learned Tribunal that the respondents were jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation but recovery rights were given to the Insurance Company due to the reason that initial payment of compensation was ordered to be made by the Insurance Company. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that there is delay of 3138 days in filing the present appeal, which needs to be condoned in view of the averments made in the application and the appeal deserves to be allowed in view of the fact that the recovery rights were wrongly granted to the Insurance Company. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the paper book, this Court does not find any merit in the present appeal and the same deserves dismissal. A perusal of the impugned award nowhere reveals that any written statement was filed by the defendant-appellant or the same was opposed on any count and after taking into consideration the material available on record, an amount of Rs.50,000/- along with interest @ 9% was awarded in a death case of wife of claimant namely Pratibha. FAO No.4964 of 2012 (O&M) #3# Appellant has woken up after a period of almost nine years and has filed the present appeal along with an application for condonation of delay explaining in para No.2 thereof by putting the blame on his counsel, which is wholly unacceptable to this Court and deserves to be rejected. To make it more clear, para No.2 of the application is reproduced below: “That the applicant had engaged a counsel before the MACT Barnala but he did not appear and gave the appellant false dates and told him that the claim petition has been decided only against the Insurance Company and thereafter there was no communication between them. When the counsel was preparing the case for argument in the connected appeals i.e FAO No.4523 to 4526 of 2011 at that time the appellant has come to know about the decision of the case involved in the present appeal. Immediately, he applied for certified copy of the award and received the same on

07.06.2012. In this process a delay of ____ days has been caused.” Further prayer clause of the application reads as under: “It is therefore respectfully, prayed that delay of 3138 days in filing the appeal may kindly be condoned in the interest of justice.” A perusal of paragraph makes it abundantly clear that the same is laconic and the appellant is trying to create a ground for condonation of delay of 3138 days especially when neither the case was contested before the learned Tribunal nor the name of counsel is disclosed in para No.2. Still further, there is nothing on record to FAO No.4964 of 2012 (O&M) #4# suggest or prove that any action was taken against the erring counsel allegedly engaged by the appellant. Merely shifting a blame on the counsel is not a healthy trend by the litigants just to for the sake of getting the sympathy of the Court, which needs to be outrightly rejected. Dismissed. September 4,2012 ( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE