Skip to content


Om Prakash Namdeo Vs. Hira @ Harinarayan Sharma - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Court

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Decided On

Appellant

Om Prakash Namdeo

Respondent

Hira @ Harinarayan Sharma

Excerpt:


.....the appellants to support his application for condonation  of delay has made the following averments : “1. that, the brief facts of the case is that  smt. geeta namdeo (hereinafter the referred  as 'claimant') filed a claim petition before the  motor accident claims tribunal distt. sagar  mp   for   compensation   of   received   sustained  injury.     that,   the   learned   claims   tribunal  awarded rs.289000/­ only for compensation  2. that, it is humbly submitted here that,  smt.   geeta   namdeo   died   on   29.04.01   at  sagar.   it is humbly submitted here that the  claimant   was   no.  having   any   children   with  her   late   husband   and   the   claimant   was  residing   at   sagar   with   her   brother,   i.e.  the  present   appellant.     apart   from   the   present  appellant,   the   other   successor   or   legal  representative from her paternal side are not  willing to prosecute this claim petition.  3. that, it is humbly submitted here that  after the said demise of smt. geeta namdeo, .....

Judgment:


Misc. Appeal No.957/2010 15.03.2013: Shri D.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant.  This order shall govern the disposal of I.A. No.2293/2010,  an application for condonation of delay filed by legal heir of the  deceased­claimant which is filed after ten years.  The appellants to support his application for condonation  of delay has made the following averments : “1.

That, the brief facts of the case is that  Smt. Geeta Namdeo (hereinafter the referred  as 'claimant') filed a claim petition before the  Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Distt. Sagar  MP   for   compensation   of   received   sustained  injury.

    That,   the   learned   Claims   Tribunal  awarded Rs.289000/­ only for compensation  2.

That, it is humbly submitted here that,  Smt.

  Geeta   Namdeo   died   on   29.04.01   at  Sagar.   It is humbly submitted here that the  claimant   was   No.  having   any   children   with  her   late   husband   and   the   claimant   was  residing   at   Sagar   with   her   brother,   i.e.  the  present   appellant.

    Apart   from   the   present  appellant,   the   other   successor   or   legal  representative from her paternal side are not  willing to prosecute this claim petition.  3.

That, it is humbly submitted here that  after the said demise of Smt. Geeta Namdeo,  her mother Smt. Ram Bai was impleaded in  her place as Decree Holder, who also expired  on   11.11.20006.

    The   present   appellant  contacted   the   counsel   for   filing   the   appeal  against   the   award   dated   19.3.2001,   passed  by Learned Claim Tribunal, Sagar passed in  M.A.  No.50/1999,   with   an   application   for  substitution   of   legal   heiRs.    Although,   the  counsel   prepared   the   application,   but   the  same was kept in the file as the matter was  filed before this Hon'ble Court.  It is humbly  submitted   here   that   on   every   occasion   the  present   appellants   were   apprised   by   Shri  Satish   Shrivastava   that   the   Miscellaneous  Appeal No.2050/201 is pending and will be  decided   shortly.

    Recently,   when   the  appellant got information by the newspaper  of   the   disposal   of   numerous   miscellaneous  appeal by this Hon'ble Court by conducting  Lok   Adalat,   the   present   appellant  approached the counsel and asked him to list  the   matter   before   the   Hon'ble   Lokadalat,  thereafter   the   counsel   again   assured   the  present appellant of listing the matter before  the Lokadalat.  4.

Despite   assurance   when   the   matter  was   No.  listed,   the   present   appellant  approached the registry of this Hon'ble Court  and   found   that   no   matter   in   the   name   of  appellant or the case number “Miscellaneous  Appeal   No.2050/201”.,   as   was   recorded   in  cover   of   relevant   office   file   of   Shri   Satish  Shrivastava, Advocate, is annexed hereto and  marked as ANNEXURE­A/1.  5.

Thereafter,   the   appellant   immediately  lodged   the   complaint   against   the   erring  counsel   Shri   Satish   Shrivastava   before   the  State Bar Council, a copy whereof is annexed  hereto and marked as ANNEXURE­A/2.  6.

In view of the foregoing circumstances,  the present appellant was under the wrong  impression   regarding   the   pendency   of   the  “Miscellaneous   Appeal   No.2050/2001”.,   as  was recorded in cover of relevant office file  of Shri Satish Shrivastava, Advocate and he  was under bona fied impression of the fact  that   the   appeal   will   be   dealt   with   in  accordance   with   law.

    In   this   view   of   the  matter, the delay in filing this instant appeal  is   bonafide   in   nature   and   deserves   to   be  condoned by this Hon'ble Court.”

The aforementioned, reasons do not inspire any confidence  for   the   reason   that   the   award   in   this   case   was   given   by   the  Tribunal on 19/3/2001.   According to the appellant, the appeal  against the said award  was to be filed by an Advocate who was  appointed by Smt. Ram Devi who is now no more had engaged  some time in 2001 but no appeal was filed.  Smt. Ram Bai later  on expired in 2006.   A complaint against the said Advocate has  been filed in Bar Council in 2010.   This also shows total apathy  on   the   part   of   the   claimant   in   prosecuting   the   appeal.

  Even  otherwise, the appeal on merit does not warrant interference.  Accordingly, I.A. No.2293/2010 is hereby dismissed.  Consequently the appeal is also dismissed.        (M.C. Garg)  Judge ts 


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //