SAROJ BHANSLI Vs. KALI CHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) OFFICE has listed this matter with a note dated 21. 10. 1991 complaining default in taking steps by the appellant. No wonder, all through the appellant is behaving in the same manner defaulting everywhere all the time in the same style. The appeal even was lodged 159 days out of time. Although application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is filed for condoning delay I have found no reasonable ground made out to explain each day's delay as contemplated under the law.

(2.) MR. Vinaykant Sharma appears and submits that he filed power on 9. 8. 1991 on behalf of the insurer, respondent No. 5 and thereafter he filed power on 23. 9. 1991 on behalf of respondent No. 2. His name has been surprisingly not shown in the cause list. It is regrettable that office has not placed the two powers even on record. Whatever that may be, he is also heard in disposing of finally this matter today.

(3.) I have found it impossible to condone delay and to admit appeal for hearing parties. Still, care has to be taken of one grievance because of constitutional compulsion of overbearing nature. I am required to give effect to the judicial mandate of Full Bench decision of this Court and, therefore, to exercise my jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution in that regard. In this Court's decision of the Full Bench in Prakramchand v. Chuttan 1991 ACJ 1051 (MP), the law laid down is that in regard to passing of award of interest under Section 110-CC of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, Tribunals must exercise their discretion appropriately by awarding 12 per cent per annum interest from the date of application till payment.