TARA SINGH Vs. RAVI DUTT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been preferred by the appellants praying for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal against the judgment and order of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, allowing the claim of the respondent herein and fixing the liability on the petitioners on the ground that the vehicle was being driven by a person not being in possession of a valid driving licence.

(2.) THE dates on which the petition was filed, decision made etc. are not disputed. Appeal is barred by 335 days. THE reason advanced by the petitioners is that the counsel conducting the case before the Tribunal had not intimated the petitioners with respect to the decision taken in the case and it was only on 30.8.2010 when petitioner No.1 went to the office of his counsel and was informed that the case has been disposed of on 24.7.2009. At this, he made a request to the counsel to supply him a copy of the award upon which he was informed that the same would be done after he applied for it.

(3.) TWO issues were settled on the application, namely, as to whether the delay is bonafide and secondly the relief. The petitioner appeared as his own witness. He only states that he had visited the office of Shri Sarvjit Singh, Advocate, in May, 2010 to inquire about his case, but he told him that it is still pending and he will send the copy of the decision as and when he will get it. On 30.8.2010, he again visited his office when he was told that his case has already been decided. On 20.9.2010, he was given copy of the award. Thereafter he took other actions. In cross-examination, he expressed his ignorance about the date etc. when he appeared in Court first time and when he has signed the power of attorney. He states that he did not attend the case on every date of hearing and came to know that the case had been disposed of on 24.7.2009 when he was informed by the learned trial Court Advocate on 30.8.2010. He then again says that he had met his Advocate in May, 2010 when he was informed that the case had not been decided. He changed this statement to say that he had met the Advocate in May, 2009. It is the entirety of the case set up by the petitioner herein.