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