F.A.O. No. 2288 of 2010 (O&M) 1 ... IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O. No. 2288 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: September 28th,2011 Karamjit Kaur .... Appellant Versus Vikrant and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present Mr. Rajiv Joshi , Advocate, for the applicant-appellant. None for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Pardeep Goyal, Advocate, for respondent No.3-Insurance Company. VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J. Kamaljit Kaur, claimant, filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded to her in a sum of ` 25,000/- by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Adhoc) Fast Track Court, Jalandhar (for short, "the Tribunal") vide award dated 13.8.2008. Along with the said appeal, she has brought an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 294 days in bringing this appeal. She has claimed that the Tribunal announced the award on 13.8.2008. According to her, her counsel appearing before the F.A.O. No. 2288 of 2010 (O&M) 2 ... Tribunal had directed his clerk to apply for certified copy of the award dated 13.8.2008 and to give the same to the claimant. The clerk had applied for copy of the award dated 13.8.2008 on 12.9.2008 and obtained certified copy thereof on 17.10.2008. The appellant enquired about her case from her counsel in August, 2008 and she was directed by him to contact the clerk, as the counsel was out of station. The appellant thereafter continued to be in touch with clerk of her counsel, who mistook her case for some other case and kept telling her the date of some other case. She has claimed that she is a government servant and could not go to meet her counsel till 12.09.2009 and she was shocked to know that her claim petition had been rejected and only a sum of ` 25,000/- had been awarded under 'no fault' clause. The clerk of the counsel of the appellant gave her the certified copy of the award dated 13.8.2008 on 13.9.2009. The claimant has not even received the amount of ` 25,000/- under the impugned award, for the aforesaid reasons. After getting certified copy, the applicant-appellant immediately approached her advocate at Chandigarh and filed this appeal. The delay is, therefore, denied to be intentional or deliberate and is claimed to be the result of facts and circumstances narrated above. The application is opposed by respondent No.3 – United India Insurance Company Limited, through its counsel. In the reply filed to the application today, the averments of the F.A.O. No. 2288 of 2010 (O&M) 3 ... appellant have been denied. Submitting that the delay is not justified and does not deserve condonation, the application is prayed to be dismissed. I have heard Shri Rajiv Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Pardeep Goyal, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and have gone through the record. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant has submitted that the appellant had been misled by the clerk of her counsel before the Tribunal, who kept informing her of the dates of some other case and when she went to meet her counsel on 12.9.2009, she came to know that her claim petition had been decided on 13.8.2008. He has submitted that the appellant is a government servant and she could not often go to the counsel to know about the progress of her case and, therefore, the delay is not intentional or deliberate. In paragraphs No. 2 and 3 of the application, it has been clearly mentioned that the Tribunal pronounced the award on 13.8.2008 and counsel for the appellant representing her before the Tribunal, directed his clerk to apply for certified copy of the award dated 13.8.2008. This averment clearly reveals the truth and the same is that the appellant not only knew about the fate of the claim petition on 13.8.2008 but the copy of the award had also been applied on the instruction of her counsel. If it was so, there could be no occasion for her to be misled by the clerk of the counsel by giving dates of some other F.A.O. No. 2288 of 2010 (O&M) 4 ... case. After decision of the case, the appellant would not presume that her case was pending, in which dates were being given. The appellant is a government servant. She would be having no financial constraints and for what reason she could not go to meet her counsel is not clear from the application. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on the plea taken in the application. The same is, more over, not supported by affidavit of the clerk of her counsel, who represented her before the Tribunal. For the aforesaid reasons, the delay of 294 days in filing the appeal cannot be held to be bonafide or unintentional and cannot be condoned for the reasons mentioned in the application. The application is, consequently, dismissed. FAO No. 2288 of 2010 Since the delay of 294 days in filing the appeal by Karamjit Kaur has not been condoned and her application filed in this regard has been dismissed, for this reason, the appeal is time barred and is dismissed as such. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE September 28th , 2011 som