Financial Difficulty, Bald Allegations Of Counsel Negligence Not Enough To Condone Delay In Filing Appeal: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed a driver's plea, seeking condonation of 581 days delay in preferring his appeal against a claim under the Motor Vehicles Act, holding that mere financial hardship and unsupported allegations of negligence against prior counsel do not constitute a valid ground under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.The bench of Justice Hirdesh observed; "The explanation offered is vague, general and does not satisfactorily account for the entire period of delay. Mere plea of financial difficulty and bald allegation of negligence on the part of the earlier counsel, without any supporting material, cannot be accepted as a valid ground under Section 5 of the Limitation Act". A miscellaneous appeal was filed challenging the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The appellant also filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of 581 days of delay in the present appeal. The counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant was a driver and was therefore not in a financial position to submit the requisite 50% of the awarded amount for deposit, which was mandatory for preferring the appeal. Further, the advocate who appeared before the Tribunal neither informed the appellant about the outcome of the appeal nor advised him regarding the necessity of recording statements before the Tribunal. Owing to such negligence on the part of the previous counsel, the appellant remained unaware of the passing of the award and consequently could not file the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. Therefore, the current counsel argued that the delay of 581 days was bona fide and an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should be allowed. The counsel for the Insurance Company argued that the grounds of financial difficulty and alleged negligence were vague. It was further contended that the appellant cannot shift the entire blame to the counsel and should have been vigilant about his case. The bench noted that while a liberal approach must be adopted in matters arising from the Motor Vehicle Act, as it is a social welfare legislation. However, it also emphasised that the term sufficient cause cannot be expanded to the extent that it renders the Law of Limitation redundant. The bench further emphasized "While a liberal approach is generally adopted in matters arising from the Motor Vehicles Act, being a social welfare legislation, the term "sufficient cause" cannot be expanded to the extent of rendering the Law of Limitation redundant... Even though the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation, the law of limitation cannot be applied in a mechanical or casual manner. In the absence of bona fides and due diligence on the part of the appellant, this Court finds no justification to condone the delay". Considering the arguments of the parties, the court observed that the appellant had failed to make out sufficient cause for condonation of the inordinate delay of 581 days in filing the appeal. Therefore, the bench dismissed the appeal. Case Title: Lakhan Kumar Rajak v Smt Kamlesh Jatav [MA-3303-2018]For Appellant: Advocate Alok KatareFor Insurance Company: Advocate Badri Nath MalhotraClick here to read/download the Order

Financial Difficulty, Bald Allegations Of Counsel Negligence Not Enough To Condone Delay In Filing Appeal: MP High Court

Jayanti Pahwa

Tags