Amol Rattan Singh, J. - (1.) By this application, condonation of 50 days in re -filing the appeal is sought, along with which an affidavit of the counsel for the appellant has been annexed. It has been stated therein that the appeal had been filed on 08.11.2013 but was returned by the Registry raising certain technical objections, after which the Clerk of the counsel had misplaced the brief of the present appeal which was kept in a bundle of decided case and was thereafter traced on 09.04.2014. Consequently, a delay of 50 days has occurred in re -filing the appeal. For the reasons given and the fact that eventually it would be the appellant -claimant who would suffer, the application is allowed and the delay of 50 days in re -filing the appeal is condoned. Civil Misc. Application No. 11853 -C of 2014 Notice in this application for condonation of 116 days delay in filing the appeal had been issued by this Court, along with the notice issued in the main appeal itself. However, the respondents have not filed any reply to the application. A perusal of the application shows that the reason given for delay in filing the appeal is that the appellant had handed over the paperbook to her relative for engaging a counsel for filing the present appeal, being a lady belonging to Rajasthan, but the relative had not done so. The appellant is stated to have come to know on 03.11.2013 that the appeal had not been filed and thereafter had come to this Court to engage a counsel. She is stated to be an illiterate lady, widowed after the death of her husband, who is not aware of the practices and procedures of Courts and hence has filed this appeal after the delay aforesaid. For the reasons given in the application, as referred to above, the application is allowed and the delay of 116 days in filing the appeal is also condoned. FAO No. 3893 of 2014 This is an appeal filed by the widow of Rehman who unfortunately died in a motor accident on 06.02.2011. The appellant was the claimant before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nuh, District Mewat.
(2.) It was stated in the claim petition that Rehman was travelling in a jeep bearing registration No. HR -39 -6962 from Punhana to Nagina, alongwith 20 to 25 other passengers, also stated to be travelling in the said jeep, driven by respondent No. 1, who was the owner and driver thereof. The jeep was insured with respondent No. 2, United India Insurance Company Limited. When the jeep reached near village Nasirpur, respondent No. 1 is stated to have applied the brakes very hard, upon a ditch coming in front of the jeep, on account of which it turned turtle being at a high speed, resulting in injuries suffered by 10/12 passengers travelling in it. All the injured were taken to General Hospital, Mandikhera, including Rehman, husband of the appellant. Rehman unfortunately succumbed to his injuries, possibly at the spot itself or on the way, because as per the Award of the Tribunal, only the post mortem examination is stated to have been conducted at the said hospital.
(3.) An FIR was also registered for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Ss. 279/337/304 -A IPC, against respondent No. 1, at Police Station Punhana. Though, in the written statement filed before the Tribunal, respondent No. 2 had claimed that the accident did not take place in the aforesaid jeep, the learned Tribunal eventually came to the conclusion, on the basis of statements of witnesses, that the negligence in causing the accident was that of respondent No. 1, with no evidence led to the contrary by the respondents.;