IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.No.5073 of 2008(O&M) Date of Decision 08.10.2009 Tahir and another ...... Appellants VERSUS Kukkan @ Kayum and another ...... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Sachin Mittal, Advocate, for the appellants. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J(ORAL): This appeal, preferred by the appellants-driver & owner (herein referred as 'the appellants') is directed against the award dated 01.03.2008, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon, awarding compensation to the tune of Rs1,43,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum in favour of the claimant-respondent No.1 (herein referred as 'the claimant') and against the appellants and respondent No.3-Insurance Company jointly and severally, on account of the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident. This appeal, being time barred is accompanied by an application for condonation of delay of 201 days in its filing. The case, as set up by the appellants, is that after the award was passed, he had engaged the counsel to file the appeal without applying for the copy of the order. Consequently, the certified copy of the award was applied on 09.12.2008 and the same was delivered to them on 11.12.2008. Thereafter, they contacted their counsel at Chandigarh but he did not file the appeal. Having examined the records, it transpires that the appellants F.A.O.No.5073 of 2008(O&M) -2- were duly represented by the counsel and they were also well informed about the time for filing the appeal. They have not mentioned the name of the counsel to whom they had engaged and asked for applying the copy of the order and they also have not mentioned the name of the counsel to whom they had contacted at Chandigarh for filing the appeal. As such, this huge delay of 201 days stands unexplained. If such delay is condoned after ignoring the law of limitation, it would completely wipe out the intention of the provision of Limitation Act and would send wrong signals to the society that any stale litigation could be entertained at any time. Dismissed. Resultantly, the appeal also fails. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 08.10.2009 mamta-II