F. A. O. No. 2202 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : F. A. O. No. 2202 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : May 06, 2009 Subhash .... Appellant Vs. Mahinder Singh and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Inder Pal Goyat, Advocate for the applicant-appellant. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : C. M. No. 10693-C-II of 2009 : This is application for condonation of delay of 642 days in filing the appeal. It is alleged in the application that counsel for applicant- appellant before the Tribunal informed the applicant-appellant that he had won the case and Insurance Company had been held liable to pay compensation to the claimants and it was only on 20.02.2009 when the applicant-appellant received summons in execution petition for recovery of amount deposited by the insurer that the applicant-appellant came to know that he had been held liable to pay compensation to the claimants. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant-appellant and perused the case file. F. A. O. No. 2202 of 2009 (O&M) 2 The Tribunal has held the Insurance Company entitled to recover the compensation amount from the appellant after paying the same to the claimants. The vague plea that counsel for the applicant-appellant before the Tribunal misinformed the claimants about the decision of the case by the Tribunal cannot be said to be a sufficient ground to condone the long delay of more than 21 months in filing the appeal. It is correct that Courts are liberal in the matters of condonation of delay. However, the liberal approach of the Courts cannot be stretched to such an extent as to make the law of limitation redundant. If such long and inordinate delay is condoned on such vague and specious ground, then the law of limitation would become futile. Moreover, the aforesaid ground pleaded by the appellant is falsified by the fact that the certified copy of the impugned Award was obtained on 11.05.2007 i.e. just 11 days after the passing of the impugned Award dated 30.04.2007. In view thereof, it cannot be said that the applicant-appellant was not aware of the correct decision of the case. In addition to the aforesaid, even after allegedly coming to know of the correct decision of the case on 20.02.2009, the appellant did not file the appeal immediately, but filed the same on 01.05.2009 only and there is no explanation whatsoever for this further delay of more than two months. It is also pertinent to notice that vide impugned Award of the Tribunal, two claim petitions arising out of the same accident were disposed of. However, the appellant has preferred appeal only relating to one claim petition and has not preferred any appeal relating to Award in the second claim petition. Consequently, finding of the Tribunal that insurer is entitled to recover the compensation amount from the appellant after paying the same to the claimants has attained finality in so far as the other claim F. A. O. No. 2202 of 2009 (O&M) 3 petition is concerned. Consequently, the appellant cannot agitate the same issue in the instant appeal, which has attained finality against him in the other claim petition. Even on merits, the appellant has no case because the claimants were travelling as passengers in goods vehicle. In view thereof, there was breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy entitling the insurer to recover the compensation amount from the appellant-insured after paying the same to the claimants. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the claimants were travelling in the vehicle without knowledge of the appellant or the driver. The contention has been noticed simply to be rejected because admittedly, no such plea was even taken in the written statement, nor there is any material on record to substantiate the same. In view of the aforesaid, I find no sufficient cause to condone the delay of 642 days in filing the appeal. The application is accordingly dismissed. Main Appeal : The appeal is consequently dismissed being time barred. May 06, 2009 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE