2025:HHC:20717 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMP(M) No. 853 of 2017 Reserved on:19.6.2025 Date of decision: 1.7.2025. Ravinder Singh Parmar …Applicant. Versus Manoj Kumar & others …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1Yes. For the applicant: Ms. Vandana Kuthiala & Mr. Diwan Singh Negi, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Ajay Chandel, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. Vivek Negi, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Mr. Devi Singh Verma, Advocate, for respondents No. 4 and 5. Satyen Vaidya, Judge: The applicant, by way of this application, has made a prayer for condonation of delay in filing the appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Award dated 29.6.2015, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-III, Kangra at Dharmshala (for 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- short the ‘Tribunal’) in MACP No. 87-G/II/2013/2010, whereby the applicant being owner of the offending vehicle has been saddled with liability to pay to the claimants compensation of Rs. 5,85,000/- along with simple interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization of whole amount. 2. There has been a delay of more than one year and three months in filing the appeal. 3. It is averred in the application that the applicant/owner had entrusted the brief to a counsel at Dharmshala and since later the hearings of the case were held by circuit court at Dehra, the counsel so engaged was not able to attend all the hearings. He had engaged a local counsel at Dehra and had authorized him to conduct the case on behalf of the applicant/owner. It is alleged that the local counsel engaged at Dehra did not inform the counsel at Dharamshala about the passing of the award. The said fact came to the notice of the applicant/owner only when he received notice from the learned Tribunal on an application filed by the Insurance Company. As per applicant/owner, thereafter, he requested his counsel to -3- apply for a certified copy of the award, which was done on 20.11.2016. The certified copy was received on 25.12.2016 and thereafter, the appeal accompanied by this application was filed. 4. It has also been submitted in the application that since the award was announced at Dehra, neither the applicant/owner nor his counsel was aware of the passing of the award. 5. In the aforesaid factual background, it has been submitted that the applicant/owner was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time and, thus, a prayer has been made for condonation of delay. 6. The application has been contested by respondent No.3/Insurance Company. It has been contended that the applicant/owner has failed to assign good and reasonable cause for not filing the appeal in time. Each and every day’s delay has not been explained. Respondent No.3/Insurance Company has already gained an advantage as the rights have crystallized in its favour, which cannot be taken away lightly. As per respondent No.3, the applicant/owner has concocted facts in order to -4- make out a ground for condonation of delay. It has been pointed out that in the award dated 29.6.2015, the presence of the counsel for the applicant/owner, Sh. S. K. Soni Advocate, has been marked. It has also been submitted that even the name of local counsel allegedly engaged at Dehra has not been disclosed. The remaining contents of the application have also been denied in generality. 7. The applicant/owner has filed rejoinder and has pleaded that he cannot be penalized for the fault of the counsel. Reliance has been placed on the affidavit of the counsel, wherein he allegedly had admitted his fault. 8. On 20.11.2018, the following issues were framed on the basis of pleadings of the parties:- 1. Whether the delay in filing the present appeal is sufficiently explicated? OPA” 2. Relief. 9. The applicant/owner has examined himself as AW-1. In examination-in-chief, reiteration of the facts averred in the application has been made. He stated that Mr. Sanjay Soni, Advocate was engaged to defend the -5- applicant/owner in MACP No. 87-G/II/2013/2010. The counsel did not intimate the factum of award passed in the case. He came to know about the passing of award when he received a notice in the execution petition filed before the learned Tribunal in the month of December, 2016. Thereafter, he met his counsel and expressed his intention to challenge the award. He further stated that the delay in filing the appeal was not intentional or deliberate. 10. In cross-examination, AW-1 feigned ignorance about the fact that his counsel was aware about the passing of the award. 11. Applicant/owner also examined Mr. Sanjay Soni, Advocate as AW-2. This witness deposed that he was practising at District Court, Kangra at Dharmshala as an Advocate. He was engaged by the applicant/owner as a counsel to defend him in claim petition filed under the Motor Vehicles Act. The claim petition was transferred to Dehra, as the learned Tribunal was holding circuit Court at Dehra. He had requested one Mr. Lalit Uppal, Advocate practising at Dehra to look after the case and appear on his behalf for the applicant/owner. The award was passed -6- on 29.6.2015 but Mr. Lalit Uppal, Advocate did not inform him about the progress of the case. He had not intimated the applicant/ owner about the decision in the case. His presence was marked in the award on the basis of power of attorney filed by him. 12. In cross-examination, AW-2 admitted that it was his primary duty to ascertain from Mr. Lalit Uppal, Advocate about the progress made in the claim petition. He volunteered that the mistake had occurred due to sheer bonafide and intentional omission on his part. 13. No evidence has been led by the respondents. 14. My issue wise findings are as under:- Issue No.1: No. Relief. The application is dismissed as per operative part. Reasons for findings: Issue No.1. 15. The only reason assigned by the applicant/ owner for not filing the appeal within time is his alleged ignorance about the passing of award by the learned -7- Tribunal. The blame has been passed on to Sh. S.K. Soni, Advocate. 16. Though, it is the specific pleaded case of applicant/owner that he had engaged Sh. S.K. Soni, Advocate only and when the case was being taken up at Dehra, Sh. S.K. Soni, Advocate had instructed a local counsel at Dehra to lookafter the case, but while appearing as AW-1, applicant has remained silent on this most vital aspect. He did not make any mention about the hearings of the case having been taken at Dehra or about the engagement of a local counsel at such place. 17. Further, the record of learned Tribunal reveals that the award was pronounced on 29.6.2015 at Dharmshala. One Mr. Sanjay Sehria, Advocate vice Mr. S.K. Soni, Advocate was marked present as counsel for respondents No. 1 to 3 in the claim petition. The applicant/owner was respondent No.1 before the learned Tribunal. Not only this, even on the previous date i.e. 4.6.2015, the claim petition was taken up by the learned Tribunal at Dharmshala and on that date, arguments were heard on behalf of the parties. Sh. Vinay Soni, Advocate -8- vice Mr. S.K. Soni, Advocate was marked present for respondents No. 1 to 3. After hearing the arguments, the file was ordered to be put up on 29.6.2015 for pronouncement of order, which eventually was pronounced at Dharamshala on the date fixed i.e. 29.6.2015. 18. The fact that the applicant/owner while appearing as AW-1 did not make any mention about the delegation of authority by Sh. S. K. Soni, Advocate to some other Advocate and further the records of case belying the very edifice of the case of applicant/owner, is sufficient to infer that the plea raised by the applicant/owner was neither truthful not bonafide. 19. The applicant/owner is solely relying upon the ground that he cannot be penalized for the fault of the counsel but glaring aspect of the matter is that applicant/owner blamed Sh. S.K. Soni, Advocate, who further passed on the blame upon Sh. Lalit Uppal, Advocate. Thus, the applicant/ owner himself is not clear as to who was at fault. Sh. Lalit Uppal, Advocate has not been examined as a witness and thus, in such circumstances the plea raised by applicant/owner is -9- rendered vulnerable because it is very easy to shift the blame. 20. In Maniben Devraj Shah vs. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai, 2012 (5) SCC 157, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “23. What needs to be emphasised is that even though a liberal and justice oriented approach is required to be adopted in the exercise of power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and other similar statutes, the Courts can neither become oblivious of the fact that the successful litigant has acquired certain rights on the basis of the judgment under challenge and a lot of time is consumed at various stages of litigation apart from the cost. 24. What colour the expression “sufficient cause” would get in the factual matrix of a given case would largely depend on bona fide nature of the explanation. If the Court finds that there has been no negligence on the part of the applicant and the cause shown for the delay does not lack bona fides, then it may condone the delay. If, on the other hand, the explanation given by the applicant is found to be concocted or he is thoroughly negligent in prosecuting his cause, then it would be a legitimate exercise of discretion not to condone the delay”. 21. In Brahampal @ Sammay & another vs. National Insurance Company, 2021 (6) SCC 512, the following exposition has been made:- -10- “18. The Court in the abovementioned cases, highlighted upon the importance introducing the concept of “reasonableness” while giving the clause “sufficient cause” a liberal interpretation. In furtherance of the same, this Court has cautioned regarding the necessity of distinguishing cases where delay is of few days, as against the cases where the delay is inordinate as it might accrue to the prejudice of the rights of the other party. In such cases, where there exists inordinate delay and the same is attributable to the party’s inaction and negligence, the Courts have to take a strict approach so as to protect the substantial rights of the parties. 19 to 21. Xxxx. 22. Undoubtedly, the statute has granted the Courts with discretionary powers to condone the delay, however at the same time it also places an obligation upon the party to justify that he was prevented from abiding by the same due to the existence of “sufficient cause”. Although there exists no strait jacket formula for the Courts to condone delay, but the Courts must not only take into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of case but also the conduct of the parties. The concept of reasonableness dictates that, the Courts even while taking a liberal approach must weigh in the rights and obligations of both the parties. When a right has accrued in favour of one party due to gross negligence and lackadaisical attitude of the other, this Court shall refrain from exercising the aforesaid discretionary relief”. -11- 22. In Pathapati Subba Reddy (died) by LRs & others vs. The Special Deputy Collector (LA), 2024 SCC online SC 513, it has been held as under:- “18. This Court as far back in 1962 in the case of Ramlal, Motilal And Chhotelal vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd3has emphasized that even after sufficient cause has been shown by a party for not filing an appeal within time, the said party is not entitled to the condonation of delay as excusing the delay is the discretionary jurisdiction vested with the court. The court, despite establishment of a ‘sufficient cause’ for various reasons, may refuse to condone the delay depending upon the bona fides of the party. 19. In Maqbul Ahmad and Ors. vs. Onkar Pratap Narain Singh and Ors.4, it had been held that the court cannot grant an exemption from limitation on equitable consideration or on the ground of hardship. The court has time and again repeated that when mandatory provision is not complied with and delay is not properly, satisfactorily and convincingly explained, it ought not to condone the delay on sympathetic grounds alone”. 23. Analyzing the facts of the case at the touch stone of above noticed exposition of law, the cause shown by the applicant/owner for delay in filing the appeal is neither sufficient nor bonafide. The facts appear to be concocted, as the applicant/owner has not been able to -12- substantiate or prove his case in accordance with law. The delay is also inordinate. 24. The plea raised by the applicant/owner otherwise also appear to be unjustified for the reason that neither the counsel Mr. S.K. Soni, Advocate nor the applicant/owner had made any inquiry about the fate of case for such a long period of more than one year and three months. No explanation has been rendered for such a glaring omission. 25. By long lapse of time, a vested right has accrued in favour of the respondents, which cannot be taken away lightly. 26. In result, the application is without merits and the same is accordingly dismissed with no orders as to cost. Record be sent back forthwith. (Satyen Vaidya) 1st July, 2025 Judge (kck)