SUBHASH YADAV Vs. NARESH KUMAR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present MAC Appeal has been filed by the petitioner/revisionist with a prayer to set aside the order dated 03.03.2012 passed by the Ld. MACT by virtue of which an award to the tune of Rs. 4,29,779 along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till realization was passed in favor of the claimant/injured and against the appellant herein with recovery rights to the insurance company who was directed to release the awarded amount to the claimant/injured forthwith. Along with the appeal, an application under S.5 of the Limitations Act 1963 seeking condonation of delay of 1158 days in filing and a delay of 4 days in refilling of the present appeal.

(2.) THE appellant/applicant in the application seeking condonation of delay of 1158 days has attributed the same to the wrong legal advice of his counsel. It is contented that after the filing of the joint written statement the counsel representing the appellant in the matter assured him that since the vehicle was insured and that the driver/respondent no 2 had valid license and permits therefore the appellant had nothing to worry and his presence was not warranted in the court. It is stated in the application that it was on account of this misrepresentation that the appellant chose not to appear before the court under the bonafide impression that his counsel is contesting the matter with utmost professional care, unfortunately which was not so. This lead to an ex -parte order dated 18.12.2008. It is further averred that the appellant was summoned to depose before the court for the insurance company/ respondent no. 3 on 06.07.2009 and after recording of the statement was discharged on the same date and again ill -advised by his counsel to not make any further appearance before the court as the same was not required. Consequently the impugned order dated 03.03.2012 was passed in the absence of the appellant herein. It is stated that the appellant received a notice from the Honorable Supreme Court in the SLP bearing No. 3023/2012 filed by the Insurance Company against the impugned order dated 03.03.2012 but since the same was dismissed, the appellant under the misconception that since no adverse order has been passed against him. The appellant did not opt to file any appeal against the impugned order.

(3.) IT has been stated by the appellant that thereafter he applied for the certified copies of the order dated 22.05.2015 and he got the same on 30.05.2015 whereas the trial court record could be obtained only by 11.06.2015. It is further stated that the appellant vide letter dated 09.06.2015 sought a verification report with respect to the permit dated 01.05.2006 of the alleged offending vehicle, from the Transport department GNCT Delhi which was provided so on 04.07.2015. It is averred that after requisitioning all the aforesaid documents the appellant approached various counsels to seek legal advice and therefore many days were exhausted for the same as well.