F.A.O. No. 2510 of 2010 (O&M) 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O. No. 2510 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 8th, 2011 Onkar Singh and another .... Appellants Versus National 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. C.L.Verma, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Paul S. Saini, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. Mr. J.S.Cooner, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 to 7. VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J. Alongwith the appeal, challenging the award dated 23.9.2008 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Amritsar (for short, "the Tribunal"), Onkar Singh and Kuldeep Singh, the driver and owner respectively of the offending vehicle, have filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, praying for condonation of delay of 339 days in filing the appeal. It is claimed in the application that the applicants-appellants are poor persons and have no source of F.A.O. No. 2510 of 2010 (O&M) 2 .. income. According to them, on account of financial crisis, the appellants could not approach this court within time. It is further averred that the appellants borrowed money from their relatives and approached their counsel at Chandigarh for filing the appeal on 1.12.2009. Claiming that the delay of 339 days is not intentional and that it is on account of reasons beyond the control of the appellants, the application is prayed to be allowed. The application is supported by affidavit of Onkar Singh, one of the appellants. The application is vehemently opposed by the respondents, though no formal reply to the application has been filed. I have heard Mr. C.L.Verma, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Paul S. Saini, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and Mr. J.S.Cooner, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 to 7. I have gone through the record carefully. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the appellants had to arrange money for deposit of the amount required under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, “the Act”). According to him, they borrowed money from their relatives and then approached their counsel and, consequently, the appeal could be filed with a delay of 339 days. The delay in this case is not of a month or two. The appellants are not men of no means. They are driver and owner of the offending mini bus. It is not a case where the appellants F.A.O. No. 2510 of 2010 (O&M) 3 .. are poor driver and owner of a three wheeler auto rickshaw which even after sale would not fetch enough money to be sufficient for filing the appeal. There is no dispute about the fact that the appellants are driver and owner of the mini bus bearing registration No. PB-02H-9684 The appellants have made out a vague plea for condonation of delay. They have not mentioned as to how they have no source of income. They have not even mentioned that they have no other property, besides the mini bus involved in the accident in question. They have not even named their relatives from whom, they borrowed the money and if so, what was the amount borrowed. All these averments are vague and have been mentioned in the application just to seek condonation of delay. Delay of 339 days in filing the appeal can be said to be inordinate delay. In a Division Bench decision of this court in Ram Chand Vs. Raj Rani 1999 (3) CCC 319 (P&H), the delay was there of 127 days in filing the appeal. The same was not condoned holding that there were no valid grounds for condonation of delay. The plea raised in the application was vague and factual position constituting 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay was not there. Same is the position in the case before me where delay of 339 days is sought to be condoned on the vague plea that the appellants had no source of income and on account of financial crisis, they could not approach this court in time. F.A.O. No. 2510 of 2010 (O&M) 4 .. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find the appellants to have been able to even set up sufficient cause for not being able to file the appeal within limitation. In these circumstances, the inordinate delay of 339 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 appellants is barred by limitation and is dismissed. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE December 8th, 2011 som