Rohtash Singh vs Mr. Virender Kumar, Advocate

In that appeal, while affirming ing the liability of the Insurance Company to sa to satisfy the award in favour of the the claimants, this Court had held that since the the driver of the offending vehicle w icle was not possessing a valid and effective drivin riving licence to drive the kind of of offending vehicle, the insurer would have a r e a right to recover the awarded amo amount from the owner and driver icle. of the vehicle.

4. The accident in question occurred rred on 04.07.2000, resulting in the death of a 12 12-year-old girl, Sonia, a student of le, t of Class III. The offending vehicle, bearing registr gistration No. HR-45-5406, was drive driven by Angrej Singh @ Chander Bhan(applicant icant herein), owned by Satpal Bhard hardwaj, and insured with Oriental Insurance Com Company Ltd. JITEN SHARMA 2025.11.10 17:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-16912-CII of 2 RA-CR-120 of 202 FAO No. 4511 of 2 I of 2024 and 2024 in of 2002

5. The claim petition filed under Sec Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by t by the victim’s parents was allowed wed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karn Karnal on 01.04.2002, awarding ₹1 st, ₹1,25,000/- along with interest, holding the dri e driver, owner, and insurer jointly an ly and severally liable.

6. While the claimants filed FAO FAO No. 3561 of 2002 seeking enhancement ent (still pending), the insurer pre 02 preferred FAO No. 4511 of 2002 seeking exone oneration on the ground that the dr e driver lacked a valid licence. The said appeal w al was disposed of on 11.02.2014 r’s 014, partly allowing the insurer’s appeal with rig ier. h right of recovery, as noted earlier.

7. The present review petitioner (dr r (driver) seeks recall of the order dated 11.02.20

2.2014, asserting that he possessed sed a valid driving licence and that he was unawa aware of the said order due to non non-communication by his earlier counsel, Mr. Yo r. Yogesh Chaudhary, Advocate, who who has since passed away in May

2017. The app applicant claims that he came to to know of the order only upon receiving sum summons dated 28.05.2024 n FAO No. 3561 of 2002, and immediately th ly thereafter filed the present review view petition, accompanied by the application for for condonation of delay.

8. The explanation offered is wholly holly unsatisfactory and devoid of substance. The . The delay of over 11 years (3847 847 days) is colossal and remains unexplained by d by any convincing reason. Mere al re allegation of non-communication by counsel can l cannot be a sufficient ground to inv invoke Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

9. As per the judicial record, th , the applicant-driver was duly represented in d in FAO No. 4511 of 2002 by Mr. Yo r. Yogesh Chaudhary, Advocate, for whom Mr. G.S . G.S. Gopera, Advocate appeared .e., red on the date of hearing, i.e.,

11.02.2014. Th

4. The order of that date clearly recor ecords such appearance.

10. Once a litigant has engaged coun counsel, the acts and omissions of the counsel, u el, unless amounting to fraud or mis misconduct, are binding upon the client. Negligen ligence, inaction, or lack of diligence t a ence on the part of counsel is not a “sufficient cau cause” for condonation of inordinate inate delay. JITEN SHARMA 2025.11.10 17:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-16912-CII of 2 RA-CR-120 of 202 FAO No. 4511 of 2 I of 2024 and 2024 in of 2002

11. The review petitioner has not pr t produced any material to show that he exercis ercised due diligence to ascertain the the outcome of the case for more than a decade ade. The ground of counsel’s demise mise in 2017 is irrelevant since the order sought ght to be reviewed was passed in 2 in 2014, and the counsel’s death occurred three hree years later.

12. Even on merits, the contention t a on that the petitioner possessed a valid driving li g licence was squarely dealt with by this Court in its order dated

11.02.2014. Th

4. The issue stood concluded after fter examination of evidence and findings of fa f fact recorded by the Tribunal an al and Appellate Court. A review petition canno nnot be used as a substitute for appe appeal or re-argument on merits.

13. The scope of review under Order der XLVII Rule 1 CPC is confined to cases where th re there is (i) discovery of new and and important evidence not within the applicant’s ant’s knowledge despite due diligenc gence, (ii) an error apparent on the face of record ord, or (iii) any other sufficient reas reason analogous thereto. None of these condition itions are satisfied in the present cas t case.

14. The plea of “valid licence” is not n ot new. Hence, the review petition also fails on me n merits.

15. Consequently, it is found that th r a t the explanation furnished for a delay of 3847 847 days is patently inadequate and and does not constitute “sufficient cause” within hin the meaning of Section 5 of the the Limitation Act. The application for condonatio ation of delay (CM No. 16912-CII-202 2024) is accordingly dismissed.

16. As a consequence, the Review App Application No. RA-CR-120-2024 is also dismissed sed, both as barred by limitation and and also being devoid of merit.

07.11.2025 Jiten (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable : Yes/No : Yes/No JITEN SHARMA 2025.11.10 17:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document