PAWAN KUMAR Vs. SURJIT KAUR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This common order will dispose of C.M. No. 20034.CII/2005 in F.A.O. No. 4548 of 2005 and C.M. No. 8314 -CII/2006 in F.A.O. No. 1796 of 2006 as the same arise out of common award dated 17.11.2001 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mansa (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal").

(2.) These are two applications seeking condonation of delay in filing these two appeals. The applicant/appellant in both these applications/appeals is the owner of offending vehicle which caused accident resulting in death of one Sukhwinder Singh alias Chhinder Singh in a motor accident on 6.5.2000. Two claim petitions came to be filed -one by the mother of the deceased and the other by his widow and minor son. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal passed an award dated 17.11.2001 against the owner, driver and the Insurance Company. The liability for the payment of compensation was fastened jointly and severally upon all the respondents for an amount of Rs. 3.80 lacs. However, a further direction was issued that if the amount is paid by the Insurance Company, in that eventuality the owner being insured shall indemnify it for the amount paid by the Insurance Company. This direction was issued in view of the fact that the driving licence of the driver Manjit Singh was found to be fake and according to the Tribunal, there was breach of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. No appeal was preferred by the appellant who is the owner of the vehicle within the prescribed period of limitation. F.A.O. No. 4548 of 2005 arises out of the claim petition preferred by the mother whereas F.A.O. No. 1796 of 2006 arises out of the claim filed by widow and minor son. In F.A.O. No. 4548 of 2005, there is delay of 1318 days whereas in the second appeal, there is delay of 1528 days. This long delay is sought to be condoned on the ground that the appellant was given legal advice not to prefer any appeal as the final position regarding the liability would emerge only when the Insurance Company will prefer an appeal to challenge the award. It is further stated that the Insurance Company filed the appeal, but the same was dismissed, without any notice to the applicant/appellant and hence he could not file any counter -appeal, as advised. It is further mentioned that the Insurance Company filed a suit for recovery against the appellant and when he received summons of the suit, he sought legal advice and now he has been advised to file appeal. It is accordingly stated that non -filing of appeals within specified time is on account of mistaken legal advice and the applicant could not be made to suffer due to bonafide mistake on account of mistaken legal advice of the counsel.

(3.) No reply has been filed to these applications by the Insurance Company, though counsel for the Insurance Company has argued these applications. The question needs to be considered is as to whether the ground mentioned constitutes "sufficient cause" for condoning the delay in filing these two appeals. Mr. Chopra has referred to the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court: