1 Applicant-Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation has filed this Civil Application for condonation of delay of 553 days in filing First Appeal against the judgment and award dated 28.2.2003 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Court No.6, Ahmedabad, in MACP No.362 of 1990.
2 In this Civil Application for condonation of delay of 553 days, the deponent has tried to explain the delay on the ground that the award was passed on 28.2.2003 and it was forwarded to the applicant by the concerned advocate appearing on behalf of the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation before the Tribunal on 25.3.2003 and the amount of 50% of the compensation awarded was deposited on 9.3.2004. That, only when the darkhast proceeding, namely, Execution Petition No.178 of 2003 was filed, a decision was taken on 15.12.2004 by the Divisional Office which requested, by letter dated 15.1.2005, the advocate appearing for Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation in the High Court to prefer an appeal in the High Court and, accordingly, the appeal along with the application for condonation of delay was filed only on 19.4.2006. Therefore, the delay of 553 days has been caused in filing the appeal due to administrative exigency and the procedure as above.
3 If the above explanation is seen in the context of nature and subject matter of the appeal preferred by the applicant- Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, where the accident occurred on 7.8.1997 when the bus driven by the driver of the GSRTC dashed with a truck which was going ahead of the bus, which shows clear negligence on the part of the driver of the ST Bus, and the claimant sustained serious head injury and sustained 24% permanent partial disability and the Tribunal awarded Rs.1,99,240/- against the opponent Nos. 1 to 3 jointly and severally, no case is made out to condone the delay. Further, if the application for condonation of delay is viewed in light of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Limited vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation & Another, (2010) 5 SCC 459, wherein, the Apex Court held that the courts bestowed with power to condone delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act,1963 if sufficient cause is shown, and the discretion is to be exercised by the Court keeping in mind the liberal approach in condoning delay for short duration and stricter approach in cases of inordinate delay and the same yardstick is to be applied for deciding the applications of private individuals, State and like-wise authorities. If the explanation rendered by the deponent is viewed in light of the decision of the Apex Court in the above case and so noted in paragraph 16 of the said judgment, the applicant has failed to offer plausible and tangible explanation to condone the inordinate delay of 553 days in filing the appeal and no sufficient cause is shown.
4 This application for condonation of delay is rejected. Rule is discharged.
5 Consequently, First Appeal and Civil Application for stay are dismissed.
(ANANT S. DAVE, J.) (swamy) Top