PURUSOTTAM DWIVEDI Vs. RADHAKANTA PRADHAN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners application for restoration of Misc. Case No. 141/112(C) of 1983/87 having been rejected on the ground of delayed presentation, he has moved this Court for interference. A claim petition was filed by the petitioner under Sec. 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (in short, the Act) before the Third Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balasore (in short, the Tribunal) claiming compensation for death of Jasoda Dibya, who petitioner claims was his aunt. It is petitioners case that Radhakanta Pradhan (hereinafter referred to as the owner), opp. party No. 1 was the owner of the vehicle which caused accident, and the vehicle was subject matter of insurance with New India Assurance Company (hereinafter referred to as the insurer). Because of non-attendance of petitioner, claim petition was rejected. The application for restoration was not accepted by the Tribunal on the ground that delay in presentation was not satisfactorily explained. The petition under Sec. 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 (in short, the Limitation Act) was rejected on the ground that sufficient cause was not shown.

(2.) It is the stand of learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner was ailing and could not contact his Advocate who was staying at Cuttack and therefore, there was unintended delay in making the application for restoration. Learned counsel for insurer submitted that conduct of the petitioner is not bona fide, and the Tribunal has rightly come to hold that delay in presentation of the application for restoration was not satisfactorily explained. It is further submitted that in case the application is restored, petitioner should not be entitled to any interest, if ultimately is found payable, for the period during which order of dismissal operated till today.

(3.) What constitute sufficient cause cannot be laid down by hard and fast rules. In New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Shanti Misra, AIR 1976 SC 237, Apex Court held that discretion given by Sec. 5 should not be defined or crystallised so as to convert a discretionary matter into a rigid rule of law. The expression "sufficient cause" should receive a liberal construction. In Inder Singh Vs. Kanshi Ram, AIR 1917 SC 156, it was observed that true guide for a court to exercise the discretion under Sec. 5 is whether the appellant acted with reasonable diligence in prosecuting the appeal. In Shakuntala Devi Jain Vs. Kuntal Kumari, (1969) 1 SCR 1006, Apex Court held that unless want of bona tides of such inaction or negligence as would deprive a party of the protection of Sec. 5 is proved, the application must not be thrown out or any delay cannot be refused to be condoned.