1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. CIVIL APPLICATION (CAF) NO. 2250 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO. 11304 OF 2009 (Rajani wd/o Rambhau Rokade and ors. .vs. The Controller, MSRTC, Nagpur. ) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders Mrs. Pathade, Advocate for Appellants. Mr. R.S. Charpe, Advocate for Respondent. .......... CORAM : S.A. BOBDE & P.D. KODE, JJ. DATE OF RESERVING THE ORDER : APRIL 12, 2010 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER: MAY 07, 2010 1. Heard. 2. The original claimants legal representatives of one deceased Rambhau Rokade who succumbed to death on 21.7.2001 in a motor accident have preferred this application for condonation of delay of 2 years and 222 days in preferring an appeal against the judgment and award dated 13.9.2006 of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur in partly allowing their claim to the tune of Rs.6,55,360/- with interest and costs out of the total claim of Rs.11,00,000/-, in favour of claimants/appellants no.1,3 and 4. 3. The learned counsel for the claimants/appellants has urged that claim petition was 2 decided on 13.9.2006 and the appellant had applied for certified copy on 27.8.2008. The same was ready on 6.9.2008 and was received on 9.9.2008. He urged that the appellant was ready and interested to file appeal but was unable to do so as she is suffering from depressive psychosis since the year 1996. He urged that she was and is taking treatment for the same from Dr. Bang. He urged that due to the said reason she was not in a position to contact with the counsel for preparing the present appeal. The learned counsel also placed reliance upon the medical certificate of Dr. Bang produced. The learned counsel further urged that the appellants are poor and they are not having any immovable property and cash in hand and as such they were not in a position to pay for court fee stamps for the purposes of appeal. After receipt of an award amount from the trial Court, they were in position to purchase court fee and prefer the appeal. The learned counsel further urged that the appellants have good chances of success in the appeal and they will suffer irreparable loss in event of delay being not condoned as the same would consequently result in dismissal of an appeal and thus their rightful claim for further amount of compensation erroneously not upheld by the tribunal would get defeated. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent upon the lines of stand taken by the respondent in a reply filed opposed the prayers in the application by urging that there are no merits in the application and the same being preferred for taking a chance for getting more compensation. He urged that such a fact is denoted 3 from the matters stated in the application. He urged that considering the said fact on the backdrop that appellant no.1 had withdrawn the amount of compensation in the month of January, 2007 falsifies crafty stand taken by her in an application to overcome the delay occurred due to her non-diligence. 5. Though it is true that proceedings intended to be initiated by the appellants are for the purposes of taking benefit of beneficial legislation made for making up the losses to the heirs of the deceased succumbed to death in a motor accident warrants for having lenient view in fit cases for ensuring that the purpose behind such a beneficial legislation is not defeated still the same do not warrant for unduly taking liberal view for non deserving non-diligent claimant. The same necessitates carefully examining case of the claimant for ascertaining whether sufficient cause has been made out for condoning gross delay occurred in preferring the appeal within statutory time. 6. Upon such an examination, we are of considered opinion that the case of appellants cannot be said to be of claimants who had not received benefits of the beneficial legislation. The same is apparent from the fact of the Tribunal having already partly upheld a claim for compensation made by the appellants by passing an award dated 13.9.2006 in a sum of Rs. 6,55,360/- with interest and costs in favour of claimants/appellants no.1,3 and 4. It is further significant to note that apparent reading of the application reveals that in spite of there being four appellants, any reason being advanced for the 4 appellants other than the appellant no.1 in not taking steps promptly for preferring an appeal. The same is further apparent from the conduct of appellants of even not immediately applying for certified copy of the judgment and award immediately after the same was passed. The act of not applying for certified copy for a period of about two years is self indicative of the intent of the appellants of being not interested in preferring the appeal probably due to having received substantial amount of compensation. 7. Similarly on the backdrop of there being four appellants and apparently all of them being major and absolutely no reason having forthcome for the other appellants other than appellant no.1 not taking any prompt steps for preferring an appeal within a statutory period or at least at the earliest clearly fortifies the conclusion stated in preceding paragraphs or at least being wholly non-diligent. Even the case regarding the illness of the appellant no.1 considered in proper perspective also does not reveal herself being suffering from such a disease because of which she could not have taken the steps of preferring the appeal earlier rather than preferring the same after 2 years and 222 days. Such a conclusion is also fortified by the two circumstances pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent i.e. claim petition was duly filed in the year 2001 and the award amount was received by her in January,2007. The latter aspect also repels the submission advanced on behalf of the appellants regarding their inability to purchase court fee stamps and consequently being unable to prefer the appeal 5 within time. 8. Having regard to the aforesaid and so also the apparent glance of the copy of an award annexed revealing major part of claim being upheld by the Tribunal , it is difficult to perceive that non-granting of the present application is likely to result in defeating rightful claim of the appellants in receiving enhanced compensation. The whole object behind legislating the provision of condonation of delay being for the purposes of protecting lawful rights of diligent person getting defeated for causes strictly not within their control and being not at all for the purposes of extending the protective umbrella of the law for non-diligent person , we are of the considered opinion that condoning delay in such a case would be wholly inappropriate. Thus we find no merit in the present application which miserably fails to show any sufficient cause for condoning delay. Hence we dismiss the application. JUDGE JUDGE halwai