F.A.O.No. 99 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.No. 99 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision : 12.12.2008 Sucha Singh and others ....Appellants Versus Pawanjit Kaur and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.Vishal Deep Goyal, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Y.P.Khullar, Advocate for respondent No.3. ... MAHESH GROVER, J. This appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana dated 4.8.2006. Along with the appeal an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been moved for condonation of delay of 1 year and 49 days. The plea taken up for filing the appeal after such an inordinate delay is that the counsel who was prosecuting the case on behalf of the driver and owner told Sucha Singh, who was the driver of the offending vehicle, that the liability, if any, would be that of Kashmira Singh, who is the owner and that he need not file any appeal and that Kashmira Singh never disclosed about the pendency of the claim petition to the rest of the appellants herein i.e. 2 to 5 during his life time. Kashmira Singh is said to have died on F.A.O.No. 99 of 2008 -2- 20.10.2007 and the appeal was also filed in 2007. A separate application has also been filed under Rule 2 Chapter 1, Part-C, Vol.5, High Court Rules and Orders read with Order 22 Rule 3 C.P.C. for leave to allow the legal heirs of deceased Kashmira Singh to prosecute the present appeal. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 has vehemently opposed the prayer for condonation of delay and has stated that both, Kashmira Singh and Sucha Singh were being represented by the same counsel and it is not conceivable that he would not inform about the filing of the appeal. That apart, it is stated that in the impugned award there is a categoric finding regarding the involvement of the vehicle and that in the appeal the liability is sought to be controverted only on the ground of non-involvement of the vehicle in the said accident. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the vehicle was not involved in the accident as in the FIR no name of the driver and the number of the vehicle had been mentioned even though it was lodged one hour after the accident and it was purely on the basis of supplementary statement recorded by one Chuhar Singh complainant that the name of the driver and number of the vehicle were mentioned. A perusal of the award shows that Sucha Singh driver was facing the criminal prosecution for having caused this accident under the provisions of Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and in the proceedings before the Tribunal which are in the nature of an inquiry this is sufficient indicator to establish that the vehicle was involved in the accident. In this view of the matter, the plea raised by F.A.O.No. 99 of 2008 -3- the learned counsel for the appellants is not tenable. Learned counsel for the appellants further contends that in the revision against the order of the criminal court convicting Sucha Singh for the offence the only ground for consideration is that the particulars of the vehicle and the name of the driver were given in the supplementary statement and the same were not recorded in the FIR. I am afraid, the parameters governing the criminal prosecution are totally different from those governing the proceedings before a Tribunal and the proceedings before the criminal court have no bearing on the proceedings before the Tribunal except for the fact that the judgment of the criminal court can be taken into consideration as a persuasive piece of evidence. In the instant case as observed earlier, Sucha Singh driver was found to be involved in the accident on the basis of an independent investigation carried out by the police on the basis of which he faced the criminal prosecution which has also resulted in his conviction. Therefore, prima facie there is nothing to show that the vehicle was not involved in the accident and the accident had not been caused by Sucha Singh driver. That apart, the inordinate delay of 1 year and 49 days in filing the appeal has largely been unexplained. However, reliance was placed on Dilbagh Singh v. Collector Land Acquisition, Industries Department Punjab, Chandigarh and others (2002-2) P.L.R. 775 and S.V.Matha Prasad v. Lal Chand Meghraj and others (2007-3) P.L.R. 97. After perusal of the judgments cited above by the F.A.O.No. 99 of 2008 -4- learned counsel for the appellants I am of the opinion that the same do not apply to the facts of the present case, as the facts noticed in those judgments are totally distinct from the one which are existing in the present case. Further, delay cannot be condoned unless sufficient cause has been shown to the Court. The reasons which have been given in the application can never be considered to be good grounds for condonation of delay for it amounts to putting premium on callousness. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed both on the question of limitation as also on merits. 12.12.2008 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss