Alwar v. Lukman Khan and Another

Heard Sri Anoop Kumar Upadhyay learned counsel for the appellant. The instant appeal has been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 06.08.2015 whereby in C.P no.228 of 2011 an award was made in favour of the respondent no.1. The appellant also assails the order dated 19.05.2023 whereby a review preferred by the appellant against the award dated 06.08.2015 was also dismissed on 19.05.2023. The Registry has reported a delay of 3,581 days and even after granting the benefits of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of suo motu extension of limitation in COVID-19 pandemic yet the appeal is stated to be barred by 2,865 days. The appellant has filed an application seeking condonation of delay. Submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that he was not aware of the award passed on 19.05.2023 whereby his review had been rejected. It is only when the Ameen with recovery citation contacted the appellant in the month of April, 2025, he became aware of the proceedings and thereafter he has collected the papers and engaged a counsel who prepared and filed this appeal, without any further delay. At the outset, it may be relevant to notice the averments made in the affidavit in support of the application seeking condonation of delay and for 2 FAFOD No. 210 of 2025 reference paragraph-2 to 10 of the said affidavit is being reproduced hereinafter: "2. That the appellant filed the instant appeal challenging the judgment and award dated 06.08.2015 passed by Additional District Judge, Court no.1/Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Lucknow in M.A.C.P No.228 of 2011 "Alwar versus Lukman Khan and Another" and also quash the order dated 19.05.2023 passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal North, Lucknow by means of which dismissed the review application on the ground of maintainability, which were passed in most illegal and arbitrary manner and without applying the mind.

3. That the area Amin contacted to the appellant in the second week of April and thereafter it is came to the knowledge of the appellant about the recovery citation dated 28.03.2025 issued by the competent authority in pursuance of the order dated

18.08.2015 passed by the MACT Lucknow on the application of the opposite party no.2 filed U/s 174 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 for the recovery of amount from owner.

4. That the appellant immediately contacted to his counsel and enquired the record then it is came to knowledge that the review application of the appellant was decided by the MACT on 19.05.2023.

5. That the appellant was not aware about the order dated 19.05.2023 and it is came to knowledge when the recovery citation was issued and area Amin contacted in the second week of April thereafter he obtained the certified copy of the order passed by the MACT.

6. That the appellant is 60 years old person and suffering from old age disease and he could not collect the required paper to his counsel as prepared on 19.04.2025.

7. That he collect the papers in the second week of May and immediately came to be Lucknow for filling the present first appeal from order before this Hon'ble court and engaged to his counsel Mr. Anoop Kumar Upadhyay and he after taking papers call the appellant before the 20.05.2025 but due to financial crisis the appellant could not filed the appeal in the month of May and in the month of June the Hon'ble Court closed due to summer vacation.

8. That when this Hon'ble Court open in the month of July the appellant contact to his counsel for filing the appeal but he could not managed the essential money to file the 3 FAFOD No. 210 of 2025 first appeal from order due to poorness.

9. That the appellant is very poor person and the said vehicle is only source of income for his livelihood and at present there is no vehicle to the appellant and due to financial crisis he could not filed the appeal in the month of July, 2025 and after managing some money filed this appeal before this Hon'ble Court without any further delay.

10. That if this Hon'ble Court not condoned the delay and decide the case of the appellant on merit the appellant will suffer from great irreparable loss and damaged which has not been covered in any manner." From a perusal of the aforesaid averments, this Court finds that there is no cogent explanation given seeking condonation of delay of 2,865 days. Apparently, the award passed by the Tribunal was dated 06.08.2015, thereafter, it is the case of the appellant that he had filed a review application which also came to be dismissed on 19.05.2023. A weak plea has been taken that it is only when Ameen contacted the appellant in the second week of April, 2025 and he obtained certified copy that he met his counsel and on

28.05.2025 the appeal was prepared but due to financial crisis the appeal could not be filed and it has been filed only 23.08.2025. Apparently, an endeavor has been made to stretch the explanation to cover the period of delay but nonetheless, no cogent ground has been indicated. There is no explanation to the fact that once the appellant had himself filed review application before M.A.C.T and the same came to be dismissed on

19.05.2023 there was no occasion for the appellant to state that he was not aware. It has also not been indicated as to who and when the Ameen contacted and a vague reference has been made that in the month of April, the Ameen had contacted the appellant. This Court further finds that there is no clear explanation or sufficient cause for explaining the delay, which is huge. Even though the words sufficient cause is to be liberally interpreted and as far as possible, the matters be decided on merits but the fact remains that it is not in all cases that the delay of such huge extent can be condoned mechanically without there being any cogent explanation. 4 FAFOD No. 210 of 2025 It is trite law to say that the length of delay is not material rather it is the sufficiency of cause which is to be examined. Long delay if appropriately explained can be condoned and conversely even a short delay if not appropriately explained may turn out to be fatal. Whenever an application is considered for condonation of delay it is also to be borne in mind that on one hand it is the person before the Court who seeks to get the delay condoned and where the delay is huge rights accrue in favour of the respondent and in such circumstances, the delay is not to be condoned as a matter of generosity rather the cause as explained is to be examined. In light of the aforesaid and the averments made and reproduced hereinabove, this Court does not find that the delay has been appropriately explained, accordingly, the application seeking condonation of delay is rejected. The statutory amount deposited by the appellant shall be returned to the appellant. As a consequence, the appeal is also stands dismissed as time barred. September 8, 2025 Harshita (Jaspreet Singh,J.) HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Heard Sri Anoop Kumar Upadhyay learned counsel for the appellant. The instant appeal has been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 06.08.2015 whereby in C.P no.228 of 2011 an award was made in favour of the respondent no.1. The appellant also assails the order dated 19.05.2023 whereby a review preferred by the appellant against the award dated 06.08.2015 was also dismissed on 19.05.2023. The Registry has reported a delay of 3,581 days and even after granting the benefits of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of suo motu extension of limitation in COVID-19 pandemic yet the appeal is stated to be barred by 2,865 days. The appellant has filed an application seeking condonation of delay. Submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that he was not aware of the award passed on 19.05.2023 whereby his review had been rejected. It is only when the Ameen with recovery citation contacted the appellant in the month of April, 2025, he became aware of the proceedings and thereafter he has collected the papers and engaged a counsel who prepared and filed this appeal, without any further delay. At the outset, it may be relevant to notice the averments made in the affidavit in support of the application seeking condonation of delay and for 2 FAFOD No. 210 of 2025 reference paragraph-2 to 10 of the said affidavit is being reproduced hereinafter: "2. That the appellant filed the instant appeal challenging the judgment and award dated 06.08.2015 passed by Additional District Judge, Court no.1/Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Lucknow in M.A.C.P No.228 of 2011 "Alwar versus Lukman Khan and Another" and also quash the order dated 19.05.2023 passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal North, Lucknow by means of which dismissed the review application on the ground of maintainability, which were passed in most illegal and arbitrary manner and without applying the mind.

3. That the area Amin contacted to the appellant in the second week of April and thereafter it is came to the knowledge of the appellant about the recovery citation dated 28.03.2025 issued by the competent authority in pursuance of the order dated

18.08.2015 passed by the MACT Lucknow on the application of the opposite party no.2 filed U/s 174 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 for the recovery of amount from owner.

4. That the appellant immediately contacted to his counsel and enquired the record then it is came to knowledge that the review application of the appellant was decided by the MACT on 19.05.2023.

5. That the appellant was not aware about the order dated 19.05.2023 and it is came to knowledge when the recovery citation was issued and area Amin contacted in the second week of April thereafter he obtained the certified copy of the order passed by the MACT.

6. That the appellant is 60 years old person and suffering from old age disease and he could not collect the required paper to his counsel as prepared on 19.04.2025.

7. That he collect the papers in the second week of May and immediately came to be Lucknow for filling the present first appeal from order before this Hon'ble court and engaged to his counsel Mr. Anoop Kumar Upadhyay and he after taking papers call the appellant before the 20.05.2025 but due to financial crisis the appellant could not filed the appeal in the month of May and in the month of June the Hon'ble Court closed due to summer vacation.

8. That when this Hon'ble Court open in the month of July the appellant contact to his counsel for filing the appeal but he could not managed the essential money to file the 3 FAFOD No. 210 of 2025 first appeal from order due to poorness.

9. That the appellant is very poor person and the said vehicle is only source of income for his livelihood and at present there is no vehicle to the appellant and due to financial crisis he could not filed the appeal in the month of July, 2025 and after managing some money filed this appeal before this Hon'ble Court without any further delay.

10. That if this Hon'ble Court not condoned the delay and decide the case of the appellant on merit the appellant will suffer from great irreparable loss and damaged which has not been covered in any manner." From a perusal of the aforesaid averments, this Court finds that there is no cogent explanation given seeking condonation of delay of 2,865 days. Apparently, the award passed by the Tribunal was dated 06.08.2015, thereafter, it is the case of the appellant that he had filed a review application which also came to be dismissed on 19.05.2023. A weak plea has been taken that it is only when Ameen contacted the appellant in the second week of April, 2025 and he obtained certified copy that he met his counsel and on

28.05.2025 the appeal was prepared but due to financial crisis the appeal could not be filed and it has been filed only 23.08.2025. Apparently, an endeavor has been made to stretch the explanation to cover the period of delay but nonetheless, no cogent ground has been indicated. There is no explanation to the fact that once the appellant had himself filed review application before M.A.C.T and the same came to be dismissed on

19.05.2023 there was no occasion for the appellant to state that he was not aware. It has also not been indicated as to who and when the Ameen contacted and a vague reference has been made that in the month of April, the Ameen had contacted the appellant. This Court further finds that there is no clear explanation or sufficient cause for explaining the delay, which is huge. Even though the words sufficient cause is to be liberally interpreted and as far as possible, the matters be decided on merits but the fact remains that it is not in all cases that the delay of such huge extent can be condoned mechanically without there being any cogent explanation. 4 FAFOD No. 210 of 2025 It is trite law to say that the length of delay is not material rather it is the sufficiency of cause which is to be examined. Long delay if appropriately explained can be condoned and conversely even a short delay if not appropriately explained may turn out to be fatal. Whenever an application is considered for condonation of delay it is also to be borne in mind that on one hand it is the person before the Court who seeks to get the delay condoned and where the delay is huge rights accrue in favour of the respondent and in such circumstances, the delay is not to be condoned as a matter of generosity rather the cause as explained is to be examined. In light of the aforesaid and the averments made and reproduced hereinabove, this Court does not find that the delay has been appropriately explained, accordingly, the application seeking condonation of delay is rejected. The statutory amount deposited by the appellant shall be returned to the appellant. As a consequence, the appeal is also stands dismissed as time barred. September 8, 2025 Harshita (Jaspreet Singh,J.) HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench