- (1.) Cm No.8752-CII of 2013 This is an application seeking condonation of a delay of 614 days in filing the accompanying appeal, against the Award of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala, dated 15.04.2009. Before dealing with the application, it needs to be noticed that the appellant was proved to have received multiple injuries on the ankles of both his legs and on his left thigh and head, on account of the accident in question, which took place while the appellant, alongwith his family, were travelling in a Tempo Traveller bearing registration no.PB-03M-0213, that turned turtle. He remained in hospital for about two weeks and on the basis of evidence led and appraised, the learned Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.36,000/-, alongwith interest thereupon. In the application, it is stated that in the same accident, a friend of the appellant had also died and two claim petitions were filed, i.e. one by the appellant through his father and the other by the father of the deceased. The claim petitions were decided on the same date by the Tribunal, on 15.04.2009, after which, as contended in the present application, it was decided by the fathers of both the children, i.e. the deceased child Ranjit Singh and the present appellants' father, that appeals should be filed against the Awards passed in both the cases. The father of Ranjit Singh, i.e. one Mohan Singh, is stated to have been entrusted the task of coming to this Court and engaging a lawyer to file both the appeals but again, as contended in the application, Mohan Singh, being under depression after losing his only son, only got one appeal filed qua the death of his son and "inadvertently forgot to do the same in the case of the present appellant".
(2.) The appellant (through his father) seems to have remained under the impression that both the appeals were filed and were pending adjudication, but he subsequently came to know in a conversation with the sister of Ranjit Singh, in her office on 25.04.2011, that the appeal filed for enhancement of compensation for the death of Ranjit singh had been allowed by this Court. However, Ranjit Singhs' sister (stated to be one Ms. Sonia), was not aware of any appeal filed on behalf of the present applicantappellant. Thereafter, the mother of the appellant is stated to have contacted the father of Rannjit Singh who admitted his mistake, after which a copy of the Award was traced out and the appeal filed. Thus, it is contended that the deay of 614 days in filing the appeal is not intentional or willful. Notice had been issued in this application on 21.03.2014, in response to which counsel for respondent No.3, i.e. the insurance company with which the Tempo Traveller was insured, appeared and agreed with counsel for the applicant-appellant that service upon respondents No.1 and 2, i.e. the driver and owner of the vehicle in question, can be dispensed with, which was allowed by the Court and time was granted to counsel for respondent No.3 to file a reply to the application for condonation of delay. Thereafter, on account of requests made on behalf of the counsel for the applicant-appellant on two occasions, the matter came up for hearing finally on 16.02.2016, by which date a reply had been filed to the application of condonation of delay, stating that the contents of the application were not believable, as it would be rather strange that neither the appellant (who had become 16 years old by the time the appeal was filed), nor his parents, made any enquiry as to what the fate of the appeal was. Even though learned counsel for the applicant-appellant was not present, but in view of the fact that his absence was effectively for the 3rd time in succession, (he having earlier, on the previous two dates, sought an adjourment), yet, it being an appeal of a minor, the main case itself was taken up for hearing annd arguments of learned counsel for respondent No.3 were heard, after considering the impugned Award and the grounds of appeal. Judgment was thereafter reserved by this Court. Though the ground taken in this application for condonation of delay are actually not believable, inasmuch as, it is firstly very improbable that the parents of the appellant would have entrusted the file of the appeal to another person who was filing an appeal against the Award, arising out of the same accident, it is further not believable that the appellant would not bother to even try to find out as to whether the appeal has been filed or not, and seek to know the fate of the appeal, for more than one and half years.
(3.) However, the appellant having been shown to be about 10 years old at the time of the filing of the claim petition in December 2006 and thus less than 10 years on the date of accident, and further, even at the time of the filing of the appeal originally in 2011, he is shown to have been only 16 years of age, this Court would be liberal in allowing the application of condonation of delay of a minor, though of course, if any further enhancement of compensation is found payable to the applicant-appellant, the respondents cannot be burdened with unnecessary liability of interest also, for the fault of the applicant-appellants' parents. Consequently, interest on any enhanced compensation, if found due, would have to be considerably restricted. Keeping in view the above observation, the accompanying appeal, being that of a minor, the delay of 614 days in filing the appeal is condoned. CM No.8753-CII of 2013 This application seeks condonation of 640 days in re-filing the appeal, after it was initially filed on 02.05.2011 but was returned by the Registry, with certain objections, on 25.05.2011. As per the affidavit of counsel for the applicant-appellant, annnexed with this application, the delay occurred as his Clerk left his office in the month of June 2011, but did not inform the counsel with regard to the fact that the appeal had been returned by the Registry with certain obbjections.;