Negligent Litigant Has Not Pursued The Case Diligently: Allahabad HC Dismisses Highly Delayed Appeal Of 3107 Days In Motor Accident Claim
The Allahabad High Court dismissed an appeal filed after a delay of 3107 days observing that the negligent litigant had not pursued the case diligently.
The Court dismissed an appeal filed by M/s Supreme Transport Company (appellant) under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) after a delay of 3107 days challenging a judgment passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT).
A Single Bench of Justice Rajnish Kumar observed, “The grounds taken by the appellant of such a long delay are not sufficient to condone the delay. A litigant, who is such negligent that he/she would not inquire for the status of case for such a long period in which the allegations are against him/her and he/she has put in appearance and filed written statement and documents, can not be said to was prevented from sufficient cause from preferring appeal in time because if he/she has not pursued the case diligently and has been negligent in doing so can not be said to have been prevented, therefore the grounds taken are nothing but excuses for such a long delay.”
Advocate Afaq Zaki Khan represented the appellant.
The appellant filed the delayed First Appeal From Order (F.A.F.O.) under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which requires an appeal to be filed within ninety days of the judgment. While Section 173 allows for delayed appeals if there is "sufficient cause," the appellant’s grounds for delay were considered inadequate by the court.
The appellant submitted several reasons for the delay, including an alleged lack of communication from the counsel, the passing of one representative, who had been involved in the case, and the death of her husband in 2021. However, the High Court stated that such grounds were "nothing but excuses" and insufficient to condone the delay.
The Court also reiterated the decision in K.B. Lal (Krishna Bahadur Lal) v. Gyanendra Pratap, wherein the Apex Court held that the discretionary power of a court to condone delay must be exercised judiciously and must not be exercised in cases where “there is gross negligence and/or want of due diligence on part of the litigant.”
In a supplementary affidavit, the appellant also introduced a claim of being a “Pardanashin Lady,” which suggests limited involvement in public or legal matters. However, the Court rejected this argument, noting that this plea was not presented in the initial affidavit and that the appellant, as the sole proprietor of a transport company, was expected to be familiar with her business dealings. The Court stated, “On a query being put as to whether the plea of Pardanashin was taken before the tribunal or not also, learned counsel for the appellant has not given any reply.”
The Bench remarked, “Such a litigant is not entitled for any discretion of Court. Therefore no fruitful purpose will be served even by issuing notices to the respondents for calling objection on the application for condonation of delay, when this Court is satisfied that the grounds taken for condonation of delay of such a long period are not sufficient at all.”
Consequently, the Court held, “In view of above and considering the over all facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the appellant has failed to show that the appellant was prevented from sufficient cause to file the appeal and only excuses have been given, therefore, the application for condonation of delay is misconceived and liable to be dismissed.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the appeal.
Cause Title: Ms. Supreme Transport Company v. Suman Devi & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC-LKO:69516)