(Oral):
1. Naib Singh lost his life in a motor vehicular accident, which occurred on 19.10.2023. His widow and children filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation from the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, after appreciating the pleadings and evidence, vide award dated 08.04.2025, allowed compensation to the tune of Rs.13,43,144/-, payable jointly and severally by all the three respondents, along with interest.
2. Aggrieved against the said award, it is the insurer of the offending vehicle, which has preferred the present appeal.
3. The appeal is accompanied by an application bearing CM-1553- CII-2025 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay of 200 days in filing the appeal.
4. In the application, it is pleaded that after obtaining the certified copy of the award, legal advice was rendered on 18.04.2025 to challenge the award on the ground of contributory negligence. The file was thereafter marked to the counsel. However, on account of incomplete record, the counsel is stated to have sent repeated reminders. Ultimately, the file was supplied only on 30.10.2025, whereafter an opinion was given to challenge the award. The competent authority approved filing of the appeal on 18.11.2025. It is further pleaded that the counsel could not prepare the appeal immediately as his mother had undergone certain surgeries. On these premises, it is asserted that the delay of 200 days is unintentional. The application is supported by an affidavit of Gursharan Singh, Administrative Officer (Legal) of the appellant-company.
5. A careful perusal of the application itself, however, reveals that the legal advice to file the appeal was admittedly available as early as 18.04.2025, yet the complete record was not supplied to the counsel till 30.10.2025. The delay of more than six months in forwarding the record has remained unexplained except for vague assertions. The explanation offered discloses a clear case of negligence, inaction and lackadaisical approach on the part of the officials of the appellant-company.
6. It is well settled that internal administrative lapses, casual approach and procedural red-tape cannot constitute “sufficient cause” within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. In the absence of a bona fide and cogent explanation covering the entire period of delay, the appellant is not entitled to the discretionary relief of condonation.
7. Accordingly, the application seeking condonation of delay of 200 days is dismissed.
8. Ordinarily, dismissal of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act would entail dismissal of the appeal as barred by limitation. However, even if the appeal is examined on merits, this Court finds no substance therein.
9. The sole contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that the deceased himself contributed to the occurrence of the accident and that the learned Tribunal erred in not holding the deceased guilty of contributory negligence.
10. A perusal of the award shows that the learned Tribunal has elaborately dealt with the manner of accident. As per the pleadings and evidence, the deceased Naib Singh was driving truck No. PB-03-AP-0629. Owing to a puncture, he had parked the truck on the extreme left side of the road and was in the process of changing the tyre. At that time, the offending truck came at a high speed, being driven rashly and negligently, struck against Naib Singh, and the front tyre of the offending vehicle ran over him, as a result of which he was crushed and died at the spot.
11. Though a plea of contributory negligence was taken in the written statement, the award reveals that no evidence whatsoever was produced by the respondents to substantiate the said plea. Significantly, even the driver of the offending truck did not step into the witness-box. Learned counsel for the appellant fairly concedes this position and seeks to rely solely upon the site plan to contend that the truck of the deceased was not properly parked.
12. This contention is wholly untenable.
13. The testimony of CW-3 Hari Krishan, an eye-witness to the accident, remained unrebutted. In the absence of any rebuttal evidence, particularly the non-examination of the driver of the offending vehicle, the Tribunal was fully justified in rejecting the plea of contributory negligence.
14. The learned Tribunal has also considered the site plan in detail and has returned a categorical finding that the truck of the deceased was parked 3 feet away from the main road on the katcha brim, and that the offending vehicle was driven off the road and hit the deceased. The Tribunal has relied upon the final report (Ex.C1) submitted under Section 173 Cr.P.C., which corroborates the oral testimony of the eye-witness. The site plan further indicates that the deceased was dragged inward from the road, that the daala of the truck got dislodged, and that window glass of the offending vehicle was shattered and scattered at the spot, the circumstances which unmistakably establish the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle.
15. The Tribunal has rightly observed that once the vehicle of the deceased was parked off the road, the question of absence of reflectors or mere parking lights becomes inconsequential. The primary duty lay upon the driver of the offending vehicle to maintain a safe distance and to drive at a controllable speed. The findings recorded by the Tribunal are based on cogent evidence and sound reasoning and do not suffer from any perversity.
16. This Court finds no reason to differ with the well-reasoned conclusions drawn by the learned Tribunal, particularly when the plea of contributory negligence remains unsupported by any evidence.
17. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the award dated 08.04.2025 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
18. The appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. All pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
