- (1.) The application for restoration is barred by 3603 days. An application seeking condonation of delay has been filed inter-alia seeking condonation on the ground that the appeal was filed seeking enhancement of compensation through counsel and the counsel had at the relevant time indicated that the matter was likely to take 10-15 years, the Court by order dated 27.10.2005 on the submission made by the counsel noticed that requisites were filed and ordered that if the same were not filed, the matter shall stand dismissed and as in fact, the requisites were not filed, the appeal stood dismissed on 25.11.2005. A further submission has been made that the counsel representing the appeal shifted his practice from Jodhpur and that the applicants became aware about the dismissal when on hearing about Mega Lok Adalat being held pertaining to Motor Accident Claims cases, they enquired about status of their case. It is indicated that the delay occurred on account of the circumstances beyond their control and therefore, the delay be condoned. A reply to the application has been filed by the respondent Insurance Company inter-alia objecting to the restoration of the appeal and condonation of delay in filing restoration application, inasmuch as, the same has been filed after delay of over 10 years.
(2.) It is submitted that the conduct of the appellant has been negligent and therefore, the application deserves to be dismissed. I have considered the application and the response made by the respondent No.4 Insurance Company and the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, which are in consonance with the pleadings. A perusal of the order dated 27.10.2005 passed by this Court indicated that the submission was made by the then counsel appearing for the appellants that needful was done by the counsel and based on that, a peremptory order was passed by this Court. It was found by the office that needful was not done, which resulted in dismissal of the appeal.
(3.) The submission made in the application seeking condonation about likelihood of appeal taking 10-15 years does not appear to be incorrect as the enhancement matters normally take that long in coming up for hearing. Further so far as the fact that the required PF and notices were not filed by counsel for the appellant, the appellant cannot be penalized for the action of the counsel in making factually incorrect statement before the court and the peremptory order coming into force. Besides the above, the cross-appeals filed by the Insurance Company are still pending consideration before this Court and therefore also, in case the present appeals are heard alongwith the appeals filed by the Insurance Company, same would not cause any prejudice to any one.;