Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar BenchGeneral Manager Road Transport ... vs Ghulam Nabi Mir And Others on 22 November, 2021Author:Javed Iqbal WaniBench:Javed Iqbal WaniRegular\n                                                          S. No. 16\n\n\n\n     HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH\n                    AT SRINAGAR\n\n                                                        CONC 61/2017\n                                                          IA (1/2018)\nGeneral Manager Road Transport Corporation\n\n                                              ... Petitioner/Appellant(s)\nThrough: Mr. Altaf Haqani, Sr. Advocate\n         with Mr. Shakir Haqani, Adv.\n\n                        V/s\nGhulam Nabi Mir and others\n                                                      ... Respondent(s)\n\nThrough: Mr. Saqib Amin, Advocate\n\nCORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE\n\n                              ORDER22-11-20211.In the instant application, applicant seeks condonation of delay\n      in filing an appeal underSection 173of the Motor Vehicles Act,\n      1988 against an award dated 31.10.2014 passed by the Motor\n      Accident Claims Tribunal, Anantnag (for brevity "Tribunal"), in\n      Claim petition No. 13/2006 titled as "Ghulam Nabi Mir vs. State\n      of J&K and others".2.    The background facts those emerge from the case in hand are\n      that on 03.11.2004 non-applicant/respondent No. 1 herein while\n      going for some official work, was hit by the offending vehicle\n      (Tata Indigo) of respondent no. 6 crushing his left foot. It is\n      submitted that due to his injury, and permanent disability of\n      40%, the non-applicant respondent no. 1 herein remained\n      admitted in Bone and Joint Hospital, Barzullah, Srinagar, and\n      was operated upon. It is contended that the accident occurred due\n      to the rash and negligent driving of respondent no. 6.CONC 61/2017                                                    Page 2 of 63.    It is being stated that the non-applicant/respondent No. 1\n      instituted a claim petition underSections 166/140of Motor\n      Vehicle Act whereafter an award came to be passed by the\n      Tribunal on 31.10.2014 allowing an award of Rs.2,00,000/- to\n      the claimant.4.    The aforesaid award (supra) is questioned in the time-barred\n      appeal accompanying the instant application.5.    In the instant application seeking condonation of delay, the\n      applicant pleads that the delay caused in filing of the appeal is\n      not deliberate or wilful. It is submitted that the delay has been\n      caused due to the fact that the corporation was not a party and\n      instead the claim had been filed against the appellant.6.    Despite several opportunities, respondents have not filed\n      objections.7.    Heard learned counsel for the parties.8.    Before proceeding to analyze the application and grounds urged\n      therein, it would be appropriate and advantageous to refer to the\n      legal position enumerated by the Apex Court on the subject of\n      condonation of delay.9.    The law on the subject ofsection 5of the Limitation Act is no\n      more res integra and there is a long line of decisions rendered\n      and delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court on the subject.10.   It is established that the law of limitation has to be applied with\n      all its rigor prescribed by a statute. AlthoughSection 5of J&K\n      Limitation Act Samvat, 1995 provides for extension of theCONC 61/2017                                                             Page 3 of 6period of limitation in certain cases, and appellant/applicant\n      seeking such extension is required to satisfy the court that there\n      has been a sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or\n      making the application within the prescribed period.11.   Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh and others and\n      Bherulal, 2020 (10) SSC 654, at paras 3 and 5 has observed as\n      under:"3. No doubt, some leeway is given for the Government\n               inefficiencies but the sad part is that the authorities keep on relying\n               on judicial pronouncements for a period of time when technology\n               had not advanced and a greater leeway was given to the\n               Government [LAOv.Katiji]. This position is more than elucidated\n               by the judgment of this Court inPost Master General v. Living\n               Media India Ltd.(2012) 3 SCC 563 where the Court observed as\n               under:"27) It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were\n                      well aware or conversant with the issues involved including\n                      the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter\n                      by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They\n                      cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation\n                      when the Department was possessed with competent persons\n                      familiar with court proceedings. In the absence of plausible\n                      and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why\n                      the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the\n                      Government or a wing of the Government is a party before\n                      us.28) Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter\n                      of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence\n                      or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide, a liberal\n                      concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice,\n                      we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the\n                      Department cannot take advantage of various earlier\n                      decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery\n                      and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several\n                      notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies\n                      being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly\n                      binds everybody including the Government.29) In our view, it is the right time to inform all the\n                      government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that\n                      unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation forCONC 61/2017                                                             Page 4 of 6the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to\n                      accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending\n                      for several months/years due to considerable degree of\n                      procedural red- tape in the process. The government\n                      departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they\n                      perform their duties with diligence and commitment.Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used\n                      as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The\n                      law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be\n                      swirled for the benefit of a few.30) Considering the fact that there was no proper\n                      explanation offered by the Department for the delay except\n                      mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department\n                      has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent\n                      reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay." Eight\n                      years hence the judgment is still unheeded!5. A preposterous proposition is sought to be propounded that if\n               there is some merit in the case, the period of delay is to be given a\n               go-by. If a case is good on merits, it will succeed in any case. It is\n               really a bar of limitation which can even shut out good cases. This\n               does not, of course, take away the jurisdiction of the Court in an\n               appropriate case to condone the delay."12.   The Hon'ble Apex Court inPerumon Bhagvathy Devaswam\n      vs. Bhargavi Amma, 2008 (8) SCC 321, at para 13 (iii)\n      enunciated besides others the following principle qua an\n      application underSection 5of the Limitation Act:"(iii) The decisive factor in condonation of delay, is not the length\n               of delay, but sufficiency of a satisfactory explanation."13.   A reference to a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported\n      in AIR 1998 SC 2276, titled asP. K. Ramachadran v. State\n      of Keralawould also be appropriate and advantageous, wherein\n      at para 6 following is noticed."Law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has\n               to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribe and\n               the Courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on\n               equitable grounds. The discretion exercised by the High Court was\n               thus, neither proper nor judicious. The order condoning the delay\n               cannot be sustained. This appeal, therefore, succeeds and the\n               impugned order is set aside. Consequently, the application forCONC 61/2017                                                         Page 5 of 6condonation of delay filed in the High Court would stand rejected\n               and the Miscellaneous First Appeal shall stand dismissed as barred\n               by time. No costs."14.   Keeping in mind the above legal position enunciated by the\n      Apex Court what emerges from the perusal of the record and\n      averments of the application is that there is no plausible reason\n      for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The averments made\n      by the applicant in the instant application do not constitute\n      sufficient cause for condonation of delay. No plausible ground\n      has been expressed in the application as would suggest that the\n      delay caused in filing the appeal, was reasonable. Besides, the\n      application is short of detail about the reasons that caused delay\n      in filing the appeal. Merely submitting in the application that the\n      delay caused in filing the appeal was neither deliberate nor\n      intentional, without giving any actual details that were\n      responsible for causing the delay, would not entitle the applicant\n      to the relief in the application for condonation of delay.15.   The application in hand seemingly is filed with the impression\n      that in seeking condonation of delay, the expresses "sufficient\n      cause" would receive as liberal construction in favor of the\n      applicant being related to an agency of the Government. It is\n      however, manifest and without any doubt that the explanation\n      offered by the appellant /applicant in the application in hand\n      cannot by any sense of imagination said to be sufficient,\n      plausible, and cogent. The explanation per se is cryptic and\n      casual.16.   Risking repetition it is worth mentioning herein that the instant\n      application relates to condonation of delay in filing an appeal\n      underSection 173of the Motor Vehicles Act, against an award\n      passed in favour of the non- applicant/respondent No. 1 who\n      suffered 40% disability on account of a vehicular accident. ACONC 61/2017                                                         Page 6 of 6claim lodged before the Tribunal and an award passed thereon in\n                                  such cases aims at providing cheap and speedy remedy and\n                                  justice by way of compensation to a victim. A justice-oriented\n                                  approach thus, in such matters is possible if the courts lean\n                                  against the casual and non-diligent approach and unbecoming\n                                  conduct of the applicants seeking condonation of delay in filing\n                                  the appeals against such awards, unless, a sufficient cause is\n                                  shown in tune and line with the principles and propositionslaid\n                                  down bythe Hon'ble Apex Court. The said principle of\n                                  sufficient cause, however, as noticed above is missing in the\n                                  instant case.17.       Viewed in the context what has been observed, considered and\n                                  analyzed hereinabove, the application in hand is found to be\n                                  without any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed,          as            a\n                                  consequence whereof the accompanying appeal shall also stand\n                                  dismissed.18.       Dismissed along with connected IA(s)\n\n\n                                                                             (JAVED IQBAL WANI)\n                                                                                         JUDGE\n                        Srinagar\n                        22-11-2021\n                        N Ahmad\n\n                                    i.    Whether the Order is speaking?                Yes/No.\n                                    ii.   Whether the Order is reportable?              Yes/ No.NISSAR A BHAT2021.11.25 13:14I attest to the accuracy andintegrity of this document