GEGIN Vs. KHWAIRAKPAM MANGLEMBI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By Judgment and Order dtd. 29/6/2019, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Manipur at Lamphelpat, disposed of Motor Accident Claims Case No. 46 of 2017 filed by respondent No.1 herein. Thereby, the Tribunal directed respondent No. 2 in the Claims Case to deposit the compensation amount of Rs.11,25,182.00 (Rupees Eleven Lakh Twenty-Five Thousand One Hundred and Eighty-Two only) along with interest thereon @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. A copy of the said Judgment and Order was directed to be furnished to respondent No. 2 for information and compliance. Aggrieved thereby, respondent No. 2 filed this appeal under Sec. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity, "the Act of 1988'). As there was a delay of 54 days on his part in doing so, he filed MC(Mac App). No. 3 of 2019 seeking condonation thereof. However, when the said miscellaneous case was taken up for hearing on 26/11/2019, Mr. N. Mahendra, learned counsel appearing for the applicant/appellant, made an endorsement to the effect that no application for condonation of delay was necessary and that the miscellaneous case may be closed as withdrawn. Recording the same, MC(Mac App). No. 3 of 2019 was closed as withdrawn. Thereafter, when the matter came up on 28/11/2019, the issue arose as to how and when the appellant received a copy of the judgment and order under appeal. The matter was accordingly directed to be listed under the caption "Maintainability'. However, the Registry misunderstood this direction and numbered the case itself as "Maintainability No. 1 of 2019'.

(2.) The delay of 54 days in the filing of the appeal is yet to be condoned. Mr. N. Mahendra, learned counsel, relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bhagmal and others v. Kunwar Lal and others [(2010) 12 SCC 159 : 2010 Legal Eagle (SC) 514], wherein it was held that a formal application for condonation of delay is not an essential requisite. Similar was the edict of the Supreme Court in Sesh Nath Singh and another v. Baidyabati Sheoraphuli Co-operative Bank Ltd. and another [(2021) 7 SCC 313 : 2021 Legal Eagle (SC) 213]. It was observed therein that a plain reading of Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, makes it amply clear that it is not mandatory to file an application in writing before relief can be granted thereunder and all that is required is a plea to condone the delay. Therefore, withdrawal of MC (Mac App). No. 3 of 2019 is of no consequence and would not bar this Court from considering the plea of the appellant to condone the delay of 54 days in the filing of the appeal at this stage.

(3.) Heard Mr. N. Mahendra, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant; and Mr. W. Niranjit, learned counsel for respondent No.1, viz., the claimant.