FAO No.2251 of 2007 (O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... FAO No.2251 of 2007 (O&M) The Regional Manager ... Applicant-Appellant VERSUS Ashok Kumar and others ... Respondents FAO No.2252 of 2007 (O&M) The Regional Manager ... Applicant-Appellant VERSUS Krishan and others ... Respondents FAO No.2253 of 2007 (O&M) The Regional Manager ... Applicant-Appellant VERSUS Rambhool @ Bhulla ... Respondent FAO No.2254 of 2007 (O&M) The Regional Manager ... Applicant-Appellant VERSUS Shamsher Singh ... Respondents FAO No.2255 of 2007 (O&M) FAO No.2251 of 2007 (O&M) [ 2 ] The Regional Manager ... Applicant-Appellant VERSUS Ram Bhool @ Bhull and others ... Respondents and FAO No.2256 of 2007 (O&M) The Regional Manager ... Applicant-Appellant VERSUS Mangat Ram etc. ... Respondents Decided on : August 07, 2009 CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.S.K.Verma, Advocate for the applicant-Appellant. Mr.P.S.Rana, Advocate for claimants- respondents. Mr.Inderjit Sharma, Advocate for respondent - Oriental Insurance Company. A.N.JINDAL, J.- This order shall dispose of six appeals i.e. FAO Nos.2251 to 2256 of 2007 (including all the miscellaneous applications filed therein), filed by the Regional Manager, UP State Transport Corporation, Meerut Depot, Meerut challenging the award dated 27.3.2004 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal, vide which all six claim petitions were partly accepted and the claimants – respondents (herein referred as the respondents) were awarded compensation. All the appeals being time-barred are accompanied by applications for condonation of delay of 936 days in filing the appeal. He pleas set up in the applications are that an exparte award FAO No.2251 of 2007 (O&M) [ 3 ] was passed against the applicant – appellant on 27.3.2004. The appellant had been pursuing the case through Shri R.K.Chauhan, Advocate at Karnal. On 26.9.1996, an application moved for setting aside the exparte award was dismissed by the Tribunal. Intimation in this regard was sent to the appellant by its counsel through a letter, which was received by it on 2.11.2006. Then, the matter was taken up with the Head Office situated at Lucknow and ultimately, it was decided to challenge the award dated 27.3.2004 as also the order dated 26.9.2006, dismissing the application for setting aside the exparte award. The matter travelled from table to table due to departmental formalities and ultimately, on 28.11.2006, the Head Office granted permission to file an appeal in this Court. A requisite draft was got prepared from the Bank on 1.12.2006 and then the counsel at Chandigarh was contacted on 10.1.2007. It is contended that a delay of 936 days occurred to undergo all this process. Upon notice being issued on the application for condonation of delay, respondent No.9 – Oriental Insurance Company filed reply, wherein, besides taking preliminary objections, it was contended on merits that the appeal challenging the impugned award was not filed even after the dismissal of the application, filed for setting aside the exparte award. Rather, thereafter, a lot of time was lost and a concocted story has been cooked up only just to fill up the lacunae. It is contended that the appellant should have been vigilant about period of limitation before undergoing formalities, but it appears that the appellants intentionally did not take note of it within time. On consideration of the rival contentions, it is observed that the FAO No.2251 of 2007 (O&M) [ 4 ] application dated 13.8.2005 moved for setting aside the exparte award reveals that it was aware of the impugned award on that day, but instead of filing an appeal at that time, it chose to file an application for setting aside exparte award and withheld itself from filing the appeal, for the reasons best known to it. Even, the said application was dismissed on 26.9.2006, but the appeal was filed only on 17.1.2007. It may further be noticed that the impugned award was not passed exparte, but the other respondents except the appellant (respondent No.2 therein) had hotly contested the claim petition. Two vehicles; one bus bearing Reg.No.UP11B-4814 and another Jeep bearing Reg.No.DL-1CC- 7787 were involved in the accident and the Tribunal after appreciating the entire evidence reached the conclusion that it was a case of contributory negligence. Now, finding that the appellant was also held liable to pay the compensation to the claimants as the liability was fixed jointly and severely of respondents No.1 to 4 in the claim petition, appellant has filed the instant appeals. In the circumstances, it would not be unsafe to conclude that there are no sufficient grounds to condone the delay of 936 days in filing the appeal. As such, the applications for condonation of delay are dismissed. Consequently, the appeals also fail. August 07, 2009 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE