SUBHAM SILAL Vs. SAROJA CHETTRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I.A. No.02 of 2023 is an application filed by the Appellant/Applicant under the second proviso to Sec. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (hereinafter, the 'MV Act') seeking condonation of 387 days' delay in filing the Appeal.

(2.) Learned Senior Counsel for the Applicant submits that the Appeal could not be filed within the period of limitation as the cause of action for filing the present Appeal arose only recently, particularly after 6/8/2022, when the Appellant discovered the fraud perpetrated by the Respondent No.1, Saroja Chettri. That, the said person filed the Claim Petition before the Learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, East Sikkim, at Gangtok (hereinafter, the 'Tribunal'), as the mother of the deceased Umesh Chettri, but on 6/8/2022 confessed to the father of the Appellant that she is not the real mother of the deceased but has accepted part of the compensation awarded by the Learned Tribunal which the Appellant was ordered to pay. That, the Appellant having learnt that the Respondent No.1 is infact not the mother of the deceased he seeks to prove this fact before the Learned Tribunal, hence the delay be condoned and the Petition allowed. It is admitted by Learned Senior Counsel for the Applicant that there is no other specific challenge to the Judgment of the Learned Tribunal, dtd. 30/6/2021, except for the fact that it is now in the knowledge of the Appellant that the Respondent No.1 was not the mother of the deceased and therefore had no locus standi to file the Claim Petition.

(3.) Per contra, Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 submits that the Birth Certificate of the deceased victim was furnished before the Learned Tribunal wherein the name of the mother of the deceased has been recorded as 'Saroja Chettri' the Respondent No.1, and no cross-examination on this count was carried out to demolish the contents of the document. That, although it is contended by Learned Senior Counsel for the Applicant that the real mother of the deceased is alive no such person has approached the Court to contest the locus standi of the Respondent No.1, hence the Petition being devoid of merit and not relating to the provisions of Sec. 173 of the MV Act pertaining to condonation of delay, be dismissed.