Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court recently held that the involvement of substantial rights is not a ground for condonation of unexplained delay in filing of appeals.

Court emphasized that timely filing of appeals under the Motor Vehicles Act is essential and should not be neglected, even if the appellant believes that their substantial rights are at stake.

The single judge bench of Justice Javed Iqbal Wani was hearing an application filed seeking condonation of 1538 days delay in preferring an appeal against the award granted by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal to the injured.

Court said, “The ground urged in the application that the delay in filing the appeal is required to be condoned as the applicant has substantial right involved in the matter cannot be accepted in view of the fact that in the filing of an appeal under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act against an award in law is aimed at or providing a cheap and speedy remedy and justice by way of compensation to a claimant.”

The bench reiterated that the purpose of filing an appeal in such cases is to ensure a speedy resolution, and equitable compensation, and to deter opposing parties from engaging in careless or negligent behaviour.

The appellant argued that his attorney failed to keep him apprised of the case's development and that he learned of the ex-parte award only after receiving notification from the execution court. However, the Court examined the tribunal's file and found that the applicant's counsel had appeared in the case and opposed the claim petition.

Court said that the Law of Limitation provides for the extension of the period of limitation in certain cases and such cases should satisfy the court that there has been a ‘sufficient cause’ for not preferring the appeal or making the application within the prescribed time.

Court relied on the judgments of Apex Court given in Perumon Bhagvathy Devaswam vs. Bhargavi Amma and P.K. Ramachadran vs. the State of Kerela wherein it was held that the decisive factor in condonation of delay is not the length of delay, but the sufficiency of a satisfactory explanation.

The court said, “A justice-oriented approach thus, is such matters is possible if the courts lean against the casual and non-diligent approach and unbecoming conduct of the applicant’s seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeals against such awards, unless, a sufficient cause is shown n tune and line with the principles and propositions laid down by the Apex Court”

In view of the said legal position, the bench dismissed the application.

Case Title: Suraj Chand vs. Bajaj Allianz Insurance Co. Ltd.