MAHESH CHAND Vs. A K CHAKRAVARTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since there was a delay in filing this appeal, the appellant has filed this application for condonation of delay in filing the same. It is stated in the application that the appellant was never served with the summons in the case by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and on coming to know of the award, he had filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the same. His application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was dismissed and an appeal against the order of dismissal of the application was also dismissed by this Court. It was after the dismissal of the appeal on 26.9.2001 that the present appeal was filed on 01.12.2001 challenging the main award. It is submitted that since the appellant was bonafide and in good faith taking recourse to the legal proceedings for setting aside the ex parte award, there was a delay in filing appeal against the award and consequently there was sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing this appeal. It is also submitted that as the appellant was neither the driver nor the owner of the bus, he was neither aware about the proceedings in the Court nor could he be held liable to make payment under the award and that is also the reason why this appeal should be entertained against the impugned award. Despite notice and number of opportunities, the respondents have not filed reply to the application.

(2.) It was stated in the claim application filed by respondents 1 and 2 before the Tribunal for grant of compensation that the vehicle was owned by the appellant and respondent no.3. Appellant has been described as the proprietor of respondent no.3. Admittedly, respondent no.3 is a private limited company. Admittedly there can be no proprietor of a private limited company but this is a question which has to be decided on merits and this application cannot be allowed only on the ground that the appellant had nothing to do with the offending bus involved in the accident. It is, however, not denied that the appellant on coming to know of the award had filed an application for setting aside the same on the ground that he was not served with the summons in the suit and that application was dismissed by the Tribunal. An appeal against the order was also dismissed by order dated 29.10.2001. In my view, since the appellant was bonafide and in good faith pursuing legal remedies available to him under law, there was sufficient cause for not filing appeal against the award till such time those proceedings had come to an end. I, therefore, find sufficient cause in not filing the appeal in time. I, accordingly, allow this application and condone the delay in filing the appeal. The application stands disposed of.

(3.) ADMIT. Since the point involved in the appeal is short, the same has been heard with the consent of the parties and disposed of by this order.