Case: Brahampal @ Sammay and Anr Vs. National Insurance Company

4. The facts in brief giving rise to this appeal are as follows: The deceased aged 26 years, met with an accident on 15.04.2011, as his bike crashed into a truck parked negligently on the road, without any back-lights indication. Resultantly, he succumbed to the injuries while being taken to the hospital. The Appellants (parents of the deceased) preferred a petition before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 10 lakhs. Vide order 07.02.2014, the tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 2.24 Lakhs as compensation along with interest of 6% p.a. Aggrieved, the Appellants approached the High Court for seeking enhancement of compensation. It is to be noted that the aforesaid appeal before the High Court was filed with 45 days delay. In order to explain the same, the Appellants herein filed an application being CLMA 6569/2014, seeking condonation of delay on the ground that his wife was ill, which prevented him from appealing in time.5. By impugned order dated 17.10.2016, the High Court dismissed the aforesaid delay condonation application, consequent upon which the appeal also got dismissed. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Appellants herein have approached this Court through special leave petition.

Reasoning:
8. At the outset, we must note that, Chapter XII of the Act is a beneficial legislation intended at protecting the rights of victims affected in road accidents. Moreover, the Act is a self-contained code in itself which provides procedures for filing claims, for passing of award and for preferring an appeal. Even, the limitations for preferring the remedies are contained in the code itself.9. The interpretation of a beneficial legislation must be remedial and must be in furtherance with the purpose which the statute seeks to serve. The aforesaid view has been reiterated by this Court on multiple occasions wherein this Court has highlighted the importance acknowledging legislative intention while interpreting the provisions of the statute. This Court in the case of Bombay Anand Bhavan Restaurant v. Deputy Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation.,(2009) 9 SCC 61  while interpreting the provisions of the Employees State Insurance Act held that it being a beneficial legislation should receive a liberal construction so as to promote its objectives. This Court held therein:20. The Employees State Insurance Act is a beneficial legislation. The main purpose of the enactment as the Preamble suggests, is to provide for certain benefits to employees of a factory in case of sickness, maternity and employment injury and to make provision for certain other matters in relation thereto. The Employees State Insurance Act is a social security legislation and the canons of interpreting a social legislation are different from the canons of interpretation of taxation law. The courts must not countenance any subterfuge which would defeat the provisions of social legislation and the courts must even, if necessary, strain the language of the Act in order to achieve the purpose which the legislature had in placing this legislation on the statute book. The Act, therefore, must receive a liberal construction so as to promote its objects.16. This Court has firstly held that purpose of conferment of such power must be examined for the determination of the scope of such discretion conferred upon the court. [refer to Bhaiya Punjalal Bhagwandin v. Dave Bhagwatprasad Prabhuprasad AIR 1963 SC 120 ; Shri Prakash Chand Agarwal v. Hindustan Steel Ltd.,(1970) 2 SCC 806 ]. Our analysis of the purpose of the Act suggests that such discretionary power is conferred upon the Courts, to enforce the rights of the victims and their dependents. The legislature intended that Courts must have such power so as to ensure that substantive justice is not trumped by technicalities.17. Secondly, it has been held that if the specific conditions wherein the power could be exercised is also provided in the statute, then the Court must exercise the aforesaid discretion in the manner as specified by the statute itself. In the second proviso to Section 173 it is stated that Court has the power to condone delay only if it is satisfied that there existed sufficient cause.18. At this juncture, we need to interpret the term sufficient cause as a condition precedent for the granting of the discretionary relief of allowing the appeal beyond the statutory limit of ninety days. Although this Court has held that provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply while deciding claims under the Motor Vehicles Act, but it is relevant to note that even while interpreting sufficient cause under the Limitation Act Courts have taken a liberal interpretation. This Court in the case of Perumon Bhagvathy Devaswom, Perinadu Village v. Bhargavi Amma (Dead) by LRs., (2008) 8 SCC 321 , observed that:13....The words sufficient cause for not making the application within the period of limitation should be understood and applied in a reasonable, pragmatic, practical and liberal manner, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case, and the type of case. The words sufficient cause in Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice, when the delay is not on account of any dilatory tactics, want of bona fides, deliberate inaction or negligence on the part of the Appellant.20. The Court in the above-mentioned cases, highlighted upon the importance introducing the concept of reasonableness while giving the Clause sufficient cause a liberal interpretation. In furtherance of the same, this Court has cautioned regarding the necessity of distinguishing cases where delay is of few days, as against the cases where the delay is inordinate as it might accrue to the prejudice of the rights of the other party. In such cases, where there exists inordinate delay and the same is attributable to the partys inaction and negligence, the Courts have to take a strict approach so as to protect the substantial rights of the parties.21. The aforesaid view was taken by this Court in the case of Maniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai,(2012) 5 SCC 157 wherein the Court held that:23. What needs to be emphasised is that even though a liberal and justice-oriented approach is required to be adopted in the exercise of power Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and other similar statutes, the courts can neither become oblivious of the fact that the successful litigant has acquired certain rights on the basis of the judgment under challenge and a lot of time is consumed at various stages of litigation apart from the cost.24. What colour the expression sufficient cause would get in the factual matrix of a given case would largely depend on bona fide nature of the explanation. If the court finds that there has been no negligence on the part of the applicant and the cause shown for the delay does not lack bona fides, then it may condone the delay. If, on the other hand, the explanation given by the applicant is found to be concocted or he is thoroughly negligent in prosecuting his cause, then it would be a legitimate exercise of discretion not to condone the delay.22. Therefore, the aforesaid provision being a beneficial legislation, must be given liberal interpretation to serve its object. Keeping in view the substantive rights of the parties, undue emphasis should not be given to technicalities. In such cases delay in filing and refiling cannot be viewed strictly, as compared to commercial claims under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. In P. Radha Bai v. P. Ashok Kumar,(2019) 13 SCC 445 , wherein this Court while interpreting Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, held that the right to object to an award itself is substantively bound with the limitation period prescribed therein and the same cannot merely a procedural prescription. In effect the Court held that a complete petition, has to be filed within the time prescribed Under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act and not thereafter. The Court while coming to the aforesaid conclusion, reasoned as under:36.1 First, the purpose of the Arbitration Act was to provide for a speedy dispute resolution process. The Statement of Objects and Reasons reveal that the legislative intent of enacting the Arbitration Act was to provide parties with an efficient alternative dispute resolution system which gives litigants an expedited resolution of disputes while reducing the burden on the courts. Article 34(3) reflects this intent when it defines the commencement and concluding period for challenging an award. This Court in Popular Construction case [Union of India v. Popular Construction Co., (2001) 8 SCC 470 ] highlighted the importance of the fixed periods under the Arbitration Act. We may also add that the finality is a fundamental principle enshrined under the Arbitration Act and a definitive time-limit for challenging an award is necessary for ensuring finality. If Section 17 were to be applied, an award can be challenged even after 120 days. This would defeat the Arbitration Acts objective of speedy resolution of disputes. The finality of award would also be in a limbo as a party can challenge an award even after the 120 day period.Coming back to the Motor Vehicles Act, the legislative intent is to provide appropriate compensation for the victims and to protect their substantive rights, in pursuit of the same, the interpretation should not be as strict as commercial claims as elucidated above.23. Undoubtedly, the statute has granted the Courts with discretionary powers to condone the delay, however at the same time it also places an obligation upon the party to justify that he was prevented from abiding by the same due to the existence of sufficient cause. Although there exists no strait jacket formula for the Courts to condone delay, but the Courts must not only take into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of case but also the conduct of the parties. The concept of reasonableness dictates that, the Courts even while taking a liberal approach must weigh in the rights and obligations of both the parties. When a right has accrued in favour of one party due to gross negligence and lackadaisical attitude of the other, this Court shall refrain from exercising the aforesaid discretionary relief.24. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the opinion that the delay of 45 days has been properly explained by the Appellants, which was on account of illness of the wife of Appellant No. 1. It was not appropriate on the part of the High Court to dismiss the appeal merely on the ground of delay of short duration, particularly in matters involving death in motor accident claims. Moreover, in the present case no mala fide can be imputable against the Appellants for filing the appeal after the expiry of ninety days. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the strict approach taken in the impugned order is hyper-technical and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.