Case: Concord Of India Insurance Co Ltd Vs. Nirmala Devi And Ors

. The facts of these special leave petitions which we dismiss by this order, raise two serious issues which constrain us to make a speaking order. The first deals with legal rights, literacy in the case of automobile accidents and the processual modalities which secure redressal of grievances. The second relates to the consequences of negligence of counsel which misleads a litigant into delayed pursuit of his remedyMedieval roads with treacherous dangers and total disrepair, explosive increase of heavy vehicles often terribly overloaded and without cautionary signals, reckless drivers crazy with speed and tipsy with spirituous potions, non-enforcement of traffic regulations designed for safety but offering opportunities for systematised corruption and little else and, as accumulative effect, mounting highway accidents demand a new dimension to the law of torts through no fault liability and processual celerity and simplicity in compensation claims cases. Social justice, the command of the Constitution is being violated by the State itself by neglecting road repairs, ignoring deadly overloads and contesting liability after nationalising the bulk of bus transport and the whole of general insurance business. The jurisprudence of compensation for motor accidents must develop in the direction of no-fault liability and the determination of the quantum must be liberal, not niggardly since the law values life and limb in a free country in generous scales. In the present case, a doctor and his brother riding a motor cycle were hit, by a jeep driver and both were killed. The fatal event occurred in November, 1971, but the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal delivered judgment five years later awarding sums of Rs. 80, 000 and Rs. 73, 500 to the two sets ofdelay of five years in such cases is a terrible commentary on the judicial process. If only no-fault liability, automatic reporting by the police who investigate the accident in a statutory pro forma signed by the claimants and forward to the tribunal as in Tamil Nadu and decentralised empowerment of such tribunals in every district coupled with informal procedures and liberation from court-fees and the sophisticated rules of evidence and burden of proof were introduced-easy and inexpensive if the State has the will to help the poor who mostly die in such accidents-laws delays in this compassionate jurisdiction can be banished. Social justice in action is the measure of the States constitutional sensitivity. Anyway, we have made these observations hopefully to help focus the attention of the Union and thenationalised insurance company appealed to the High Court against the award.

Reasoning: We are not able to agree with this reasoning. A company relies on its legal adviser and the managers expertise is in company management and not in law. There is no particular reason why when a company or other person retains a lawyer to advise it or him on legal affairs reliance should not be placed on such counsel. Of course, if there is gross delay too patent even for laymen or if there is incomprehensible indifference the shield of legal opinion may still behave clarified the legal position regarding the propriety and reasonableness of companies and other persons relying upon legal opinion in the matter of computation of limitation since it is a problem which may arise frequently. If legal advisers opinions are to be subjected by company managers to further legal scrutiny of their own, an impossible situation may arise. Indeed Government, a large litigant in this country, may find itself in difficulty. That is the reason why we have chosen to explain at this length the application of s. 5 vis-a-vis counselsdoes not automatically secure a visa for the petitioner into this court under article 136. There must be manifest injustice or gross misappreciation or perversity in factual findings. We have examined the merits of the matter to the extent available on the record and have heard counsel for the petitioner. He has hardly convinced us that the merits of the case call for any intervention athave no doubt that the finding on both the culpability and the quantum as rendered by the trial court are correct. But the High Court dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay, dismissing the application of the petitioner for condonation under s. 5 of the Limitation Act