F.A.O. No. 5359 of 2009 (O&M) 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O. No. 5359 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 8th, 2011 The State of Tripura .... Appellants Versus Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate, for Mr. Ritu Raj Biswas, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Pardeep Goyal, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. Mr. K.S.Dhillon, Advocate, for respondent No.2. VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J. Alongwith the appeal challenging the award dated 3.12.2005 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jalandhar (for short, "the Tribunal") , the State of Tripura, respondent No.7, has filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, praying for condonation of delay of 1287 days in filing the appeal. It is claimed in the application that the applicant-appellant was not aware of the passing of the F.A.O. No. 5359 of 2009 (O&M) 2 .. impugned award by the Tribunal dated 3.12.2005. The appellant claims to have come to know about the passing of the award when in October, 2008, District Magistrate-cum-Collector, West Tripura received a legal notice from the Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Agartala Division. After receiving the legal notice, the District Magistrate had written to Inspector Police, Legal Cell to prepare a factual report, who in response, requested Superintendent of Police (Procurement) and he in his turn sought some documents in this regard from Incharge, Police Station, Umiam, Meghalaya. When the said information was not received, Superintendent of Police again wrote a reminder and finally the documents were received on 26.12.2008. The factual report was prepared on 19.1.2009 and after taking the opinion of the Law department, draft copy of the appeal was prepared. The draft of the amount, required to be deposited under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Act”) was prepared but as summer vacations fell in the meanwhile, the appeal could not be filed and the same has been filed in the first half of September, 2009. The application is supported by an affidavit of Sh.R.C.Poddar, Additional Resident Commissioner, Tripura Bhawan, Chankyapuri, New Delhi. The application is vehemently opposed by respondent No.1, though no formal reply to the application has been filed. I have heard Mr. Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Pardeep Goyal, learned counsel for respondent F.A.O. No. 5359 of 2009 (O&M) 3 .. No. 1 and Mr. K.S.Dhillon, learned counsel for respondent No.2. I have gone through the record carefully. Learned counsel for the appellant has admitted that the appellant was served with notice of the petition filed by Baldev Kaur for 25.5.2005. According to him, the appellant filed reply to the claim petition by way of speed post on 5.7.2005. He has claimed that no communication was received thereafter from the Tribunal and, consequently, the appellant came to know of the passing of the award dated 3.12.2005 only in October, 2008 when the Collector, West Tripura received a certificate under section 174 of the Act from the Tribunal. Admittedly, it is a case where the appellant was served with notice of the petition for 25.5.2005. It is also an admitted fact that reply to the claim petition was also filed by speed post and not in person. These facts are missing from the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Even after coming to know of the award in October, 2008 through District Magistrate, West Tripura, the appellant took nearly one year in presenting this appeal. In the matters of condonation of delay in filing the appeal, private individual and the State agencies have to be treated alike. Small latitude is permissible in case of State because papers for filing appeal pass through various channels and in this process, some delay occurs. However, it is not such a case where the delay could be claimed to have occasioned at various levels in taking decision of filing the appeal. The delay was already enormous before F.A.O. No. 5359 of 2009 (O&M) 4 .. the appellant came to know about the passing of impugned award by the Tribunal and even thereafter, it took inordinate time in presenting the appeal. In these circumstances, the inordinate delay of 1287 days in filing the appeal does not deserve to be condoned. Therefore, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant is barred by limitation and is dismissed. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE December 8th, 2011 som