Bhagyamma and Ors. Vs. M/s Sandeep Crane & Trailer Serv. & Anr.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 4420 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 8/2000)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 8/2000)
Petitioner: Bhagyamma and Ors.
Respondent: M/s Sandeep Crane & Trailer Serv. & Anr.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 4420 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 8/2000)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 8/2000)
Judges: K.T. THOMAS & R.P. SETHI, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jul 08, 2000
Head Note:
MOTOR VEHICLES
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Section 163 with Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 – Appeal for compensation – Delay of 121 days – Laches found to be not of serious nature – Widow pursuing for compensation of death of husband. Held that delay is condoned and appeal is restored to High Court. (Paras 3, 4)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. Appellants were the claimants for an award of compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bangalore in respect of the death of the bread-winner of their family. As they were not satisfied with the amount awarded by the Tribunal, they filed an appeal before the High Court. But the appeal was out of time and hence they moved an application for condoning the delay of 121 days. The High Court dismissed the said application as the explanation was not found satisfactory. Accordingly, the appeal itself was rejected by the impugned order.
3. The explanation offered for the delay of 121 days can be seen from the affidavit sworn to by the first appellant. In a way, it could be said that the delay is attributable to the laches of the appellants. Nonetheless, we cannot shut our eyes over the fact that it is the bereaved widow of the victim who was unable to file the appeal within the time limit and, therefore, a little amount of laches can be condoned by the court particularly when she was agitating for compensation in respect of the death of her husband. We do not view for laches so seriously as to deprive her of a chance to file the appeal.
4. In the circumstances of this case, we condone the delay and allow the application for condoning of delay in filing the appeal before the High Court. As the appeal has been regularised, the same has to be disposed of in accordance with law.
5. To the above extent this appeal is allowed and High Court will now dispose of the regularised appeal in accordance with law.
1. Leave granted.
2. Appellants were the claimants for an award of compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bangalore in respect of the death of the bread-winner of their family. As they were not satisfied with the amount awarded by the Tribunal, they filed an appeal before the High Court. But the appeal was out of time and hence they moved an application for condoning the delay of 121 days. The High Court dismissed the said application as the explanation was not found satisfactory. Accordingly, the appeal itself was rejected by the impugned order.
3. The explanation offered for the delay of 121 days can be seen from the affidavit sworn to by the first appellant. In a way, it could be said that the delay is attributable to the laches of the appellants. Nonetheless, we cannot shut our eyes over the fact that it is the bereaved widow of the victim who was unable to file the appeal within the time limit and, therefore, a little amount of laches can be condoned by the court particularly when she was agitating for compensation in respect of the death of her husband. We do not view for laches so seriously as to deprive her of a chance to file the appeal.
4. In the circumstances of this case, we condone the delay and allow the application for condoning of delay in filing the appeal before the High Court. As the appeal has been regularised, the same has to be disposed of in accordance with law.
5. To the above extent this appeal is allowed and High Court will now dispose of the regularised appeal in accordance with law.
