ANAND UPADHYAY Vs. KAMALKISHORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on I.A. No. 6355 of 2025, which is an application filed under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking the condonation of delay in filing the Miscellaneous Appeal under Sec. 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Award dtd. 8/2/2024 passed by the Seventh Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Vidisha, in MACC No. 40 of 2023, whereby the Claims Tribunal has dismissed the claim case of the appellant.

(2.) The appellant, in his application for condonation of delay, contends that the impugned Award was passed by the Claims Tribunal on 8/2/2024, and the present Miscellaneous Appeal was filed on 18/8/2025. The appellant, a rural villager from a poor family, claims that he had to borrow money from relatives at a high-interest rate to file the appeal. He contends that due to his lack of awareness of the legal process and the complexities of filing an appeal against the award passed by the Claims Tribunal, there was a delay of 464 days in filing the appeal. The appellant further submits that he approached his counsel after managing to arrange the necessary funds, and after preparation of the appeal, it was finally filed on 18/8/2025. The appellant's counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in New Okhla Industrial Development Authority vs. Rameshwar alias Ramesh Chandra Sharma (D) through Legal Heir and Another, Civil Appeal Nos. 8331-8345 of 2022, decided on 17/11/2022, to support the plea for condonation of delay. It is argued that the delay is neither willful nor intentional and that the appellant's inability to understand the legal intricacies and his poor financial condition should be considered as sufficient cause for the delay.

(3.) On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents opposed the application for condonation of delay. The respondents argue that the appellant has failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. The respondents submit that the award passed by the Claims Tribunal is dtd. 8/2/2024, and there has been a considerable delay in filing the appeal without any justifiable reason. The respondents further contend that the appellant's claim of financial constraints and ignorance of legal proceedings cannot be considered as valid grounds for condonation of delay. They argue that even if the appellant was unaware of the legal process, it is well-settled that ignorance of law is not a valid excuse, and the appellant should have made an effort to consult legal counsel earlier. The respondents contend that the delay in filing the appeal is not sufficiently explained and, therefore, should not be condoned.