SMT TERSI & ORS. vs BHARTI AXA GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE CO.LTD & ORS.
$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 19.10.2023
+ MAC.APP. 3/2023
SMT TERSI & ORS. ….. Appellants
Through: Mr.C.M. Patel, Mr.Ranjit Kumar, Advs.
versus
BHARTI AXA GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE CO.LTD & ORS.
….. Respondents
Through: Mr.Navneet Kumar, Mr.Antavik Chokraboarti, Advs. for R-3.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL. 142/2023 & CM APPL. 30107/2023
1. These applications have been filed seeking condonation of delay of 1792 days in filing and 564 days in re-filing of the present appeal.
2. This appeal has been filed challenging the Award dated 19.01.2015 (hereinafter referred to as the Impugned Award) passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-02, New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in Suit no.368/2014, titled Smt.Tersi & Ors. v. Ramesh Kumar Patel & Ors., dismissing the Claim Petition filed by the appellants herein, observing that as the appellants are permanent residents of the State of Madhya Pradesh; the respondent no.1, who is the driver of the offending vehicle, also belongs to Madhya Pradesh; the respondent no.3, owner of the offending vehicle, is the resident of State of Tamil Nadu; the insurance policy for the offending vehicle was also issued from Tamil Nadu; and the accident in question had taken place in the State of Karnataka; and, the appellants have failed to prove that they were residents of Delhi, the Tribunal, therefore, lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain the Claim Petition. The Claim Petition was returned to the appellants for presenting the same before the appropriate Court of jurisdiction.
3. As the appeal has been filed with a delay of 1792 days and there is also a delay of 564 days in re-filing the appeal, the appellants, vide order dated 31.05.2023, were directed to file a better affidavit to explain the reasons for this enormous delay. In the affidavit filed in compliance thereof, it is stated that the case file of the learned counsel engaged by the appellants was untraceable for a long time. The appellants further assert that they themselves come from a rural background and are illiterate. They state that they belong to a distant place in the State of Madhya Pradesh. It was only in February-March, 2020 that the appeal was finally drafted for filing. Thereafter, the counsel for the appellants approached the appellant no.1 and her husband, that is, the appellant no.2, however, as they were not available in Delhi and the entire family had gone to Rewa, Madhya Pradesh due to the Covid-19 pandemic, further delay was caused. It is only after a long delay that they could arrange the money for filing the present appeal and this appeal was filed.
4. The learned counsel for the appellants, placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Y. Moideen Kunhi, (2009) 13 SCC 192, submits that even a delay of 6500 days has been condoned by the Supreme Court in the said judgment. He further placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Dalganjan Singh & Anr., 2017 SCC OnLine Del 8518 to submit that there as well, the delay of 9 years has been condoned.
5. I am unable to accept the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants. As is evident now from the affidavit explaining the delay in filing the appeal, the appellants are not the residents of Delhi but are the residents of the State of Madhya Pradesh.
6. As noted hereinabove, no part of the cause of action has arisen in Delhi. The appellants still insisted on pursuing their claim in Delhi, when clearly even as per their own affidavit, they are unable/incapable to do so. It seems that the appellants may have been following misguided advice received by them.
7. In any event, the accident had taken place on 29.02.2012. The Impugned Award was passed on 19.01.2015, giving liberty to the claimants to file their Claim Petition before the Court of appropriate jurisdiction. I do not find a sufficient ground being made out by the appellants for seeking condonation of delay.
8. The applications are accordingly dismissed.
MAC.APP. 3/2023
9. As the above applications seeking condonation of delay are dismissed, consequently, the appeal is dismissed on the ground of limitation.
10. There shall be no order as to costs.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
OCTOBER 19, 2023/Arya/AS
MAC.APP. 3/2023 Page 1 of 3