[2025:RJ-JP:17769] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3412/2019 Jagdish Chandra S/o Ramnarain, R/o Girdharpura, Tehsil Jhalrapatan, District Jhalawar (Rajasthan) (Vehicle Owner) ----Appellant Versus 1. Shaitan Bai W/o Bane Singh, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Laxmipura, Tehsil Aklera, District Jhalawar. 2. Durgabai D/o Bane Singh, Aged About 11 Years, Minor Through Guardian- Shaitanbai W/o Bane Singh (Mother), R/o Laxmipura, Tehsil Aklera, District Jhalawar. 3. Krishanabai D/o Bane Singh, Aged About 9 Years, Minor Through Guardian- Shaitanbai W/o Bane Singh (Mother), R/o Laxmipura, Tehsil Aklera, District Jhalawar. 4. Vikas S/o Bane Singh, Aged About 5 Years, Minor Through Guardian- Shaitanbai W/o Bane Singh (Mother), R/o Laxmipura, Tehsil Aklera, District Jhalawar. 5. Badrilal S/o Sinhaji, R/o Laxmipura, Tehsil Aklera, District Jhalawar. 6. Nandubai W/o Badrilal, R/o Laxmipura, Tehsil Aklera, District Jhalawar. 7. Mukesh Kumar S/o Bherulal, R/o Girdharpura, Tehsil Jhalrapatan, District Jhalawar. (Vehicle Driver) 8. United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Mangalpura, Jhalawar, District Jhalawar. (Insurance Company) ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3411/2019 Jagdish Chandra S/o Ramnarain, R/o Girdharpura, Tehsil Jhalrapatan, District Jhalawar (Rajasthan) (Vehicle Owner) ----Appellant Versus 1. Devilal S/o Late Shri Shivlal, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Laxmipura, Tehsil Aklera, District Jhalawar. 2. Dhapubai W/o Devilal, Aged About 44 Years, R/o [2025:RJ-JP:17769] (2 of 4) [CMA-3412/2019] Laxmipura, Tehsil Aklera, District Jhalawar. 3. Durgalal S/o Devilal, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Laxmipura, Tehsil Aklera, District Jhalawar. 4. Rohit S/o Devilal, Aged About 14 Years, Minor Through Guardian- Dhapubai (Mother), R/o Laxmipura, Tehsil Aklera, District Jhalawar. 5. Sattu S/o Devilal, Aged About 11 Years, Minor Through Guardian- Dhapubai (Mother), R/o Laxmipura, Tehsil Aklera, District Jhalawar. 6. Mukesh Kumar S/o Bherulal, R/o Girdharpura, Tehsil Jhalrapatan, District Jhalawar. (Vehicle Driver) 7. United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Mangalpura, Jhalawar, District Jhalawar. (Insurance Company) ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rakesh Saini on behalf of Mr. Sanjay Mehrishi For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 28/04/2025 1. Matters come up on applications (IA Nos.1297/2019 & 1296/2019) filed by the applicants/appellants under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of one thousand three hundred sixteen (1316) days' in filing the present civil misc. appeals. 2. The present civil misc. appeals have been preferred by the appellants against the award dated 27.07.2015 passed by the Court of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Jhalawar, District Jhalawar in Claim Petition Nos.572/2015 & 573/2015. [2025:RJ-JP:17769] (3 of 4) [CMA-3412/2019] 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that though the appellants engaged a lawyer for contesting the claim petition, but the lawyer never informed them about passing of the impugned award. Learned counsel further submits that the appellants came to know of the impugned award when the recovery notices were served upon them on 17.05.2019. 4. Heard. 5. Considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants and perused the avermnets made in the applications as well as in the appeals. 6. The delay in filing the appeals is one thousand three hundred sixteen (1316) days' in each. In the memo of applications for condonation of delay, the only excuse submitted by the applicants is that they engaged the lawyer for contesting the claim petition but they were never informed about the impugned award and they came to know about the impugned award after receiving the recovery notice dated 17.05.2019. 7. In the applications for condonation of delay, the applicants have not even mentioned the details of the lawyer whom they alleged to have engaged for contesting the claim petition so that the facts as stated in the applications can be verified from the said lawyer. Nothing on record has been placed to show that any lawyer filed Vakalatnama for appellants before the Tribunal. The delay of one thousand three hundred sixteen (1316) days' in filing the appeals and the applicants were required to explain the reasons on day to day basis but there is no convincing explanation given in the applications. The applicants have not explained the inordinate delay of one thousand three [2025:RJ-JP:17769] (4 of 4) [CMA-3412/2019] hundred sixteen (1316) days' in filing the present civil misc. appeals and, therefore, this Court is not inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeals. 8. Accordingly, applications (IA Nos.1297/2019 & 1296/2019) filed by the applicants/appellants under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of one thousand three hundred sixteen (1316) days' in filing the present civil misc. appeals, are dismissed being time barred. 9. Accordingly, the present civil misc. appeals are also dismissed being time barred. 10. The stay application and pending application, if any, also stand disposed of. 11. Copy of this order be placed in connected file. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J ARTI SHARMA /20-21