ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. KAILASH DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT feeling aggrieved by the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated 4-8-1992 filed the appeal along with application u/s. 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. This Court issued notice in C. M. No. I586-C-II of 1993 to the respondents who put in appearance and contested the same. On May 26,1993 this Court on perusal of the application and the accompanying affidavit came, prima facie, to a conclusion that the averments made by the applicant in his application u/s. 5 of the Limitation Act are in very general and vague terms. All the same before taking a final decision the Court directed the applicant to place on record further affidavit or other material to make out a sufficient cause for the delay. The applicant consequently filed another affidavit in support of his application on 1-6-1993. The matter was once again examined by the Court. It was found that even additional affidavit filed by the applicant contains mistakes and so a direction was given to the applicant to file another affidavit giving correct dates. Instead of merely correcting dates; the applicant has placed on record another affidavit giving in the details of the various circumstances which led to delay in filing the appeal. The affidavit is dated 12-8-1993.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the applicant in support of his plea that the delay of 47 days stands fully explained and the same comes within the ambit of sufficient cause as envisaged by Section 5 of the Limitation Act almost read in extenso the affidavit dated 12-8-1993. In addition thereto the counsel relied upon the decision of the apex Court in case reported as Collector, Land Acquisition, Anatnag v. Mst. Katiji, AIR 1987 SC 1353 and thus urged that the delay be condoned and the appeal be heard on merit.

(3.) COUNSEL for the respondents, however, argued that each one of the three affidavits filed by the applicant give different versions as to how this delay occurred. In fact, the applicant has tried to improve upon the original version as given in the application. Examined in this light there is no escape from the conclusion that the latter version as per affidavit dated 1-6-1993 and 12-8-1993, is in the nature of an after thought. The applicant, in fact, has been callous in taking suitable steps for filing this appeal and thus no case is made out for treating the delay in filing the appeal as a sufficient cause.