Radheshyam Vs. Sushil

Radheshyam vs Sushil

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Dec 15, 2003

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/512769

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/512769
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Judge: S.K. Kulshresth and ;Ashok Kumar Tiwari, JJ.
Decided On: Dec 15, 2003
Subject: Insurance;Motor Vehicles

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Key legal issue: Insurance;Motor Vehicles

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Radheshyam

Respondent

Sushil

Legal References

Cases Referred: Prakash and Anr. v. Managing Director K.S.R.T.C. and Ors.
Reported In: IV(2006)ACC451

Excerpt

- order1. heard on m (c) pno. 531 of 2003. the appeal is time barred by 952 days for which the appellants have filed the above application under section 5 of the limitation act to seek condonation. learned counsel for the appellants has referred to section 173 of the motor vehicles act and to the decisions in vedabai @ vaijayantabai baburao patil v. shantaram baburao patil and ors. v : 2001(132)elt15(sc) and the state of west bengals v. the administrator, howrah municipality : [1972]2scr874a , in support of the submission that sufficient cause must be construed liberally to as to advance justice and not to thwart it. she has further referred to a decision on 1998 acj 1311 of the karnataka high court in support of her contention that ignorance of provision and illiteracy are also the causes for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent has referred to a decision to a decision in prakash and anr. v. managing director k.s.r.t.c. and ors. i (2000) acc 554 (sc) : air 2000 sc 3419, in which the apex court had not condoned the delay of 416 days in filing the appeal.2. in the present case the appellants have claimed compensation for the death of ditya and they were granted a compensation of rs. 1,05,000 by award dated 25.4.200 passed by the first motor accident claims tribunal, show in claim case no. 11 of 1998. the appellants have apparently participated in the proceedings before the tribunal and have received the amount in accordance with the direction contained therein, in connection whereof they must have been in constant touch with their counsel. it is, therefore, difficult to believe that they were not appraised about the limitation for filing an appeal against the inadequacy of the compensation. it, therefore, does not appear that they were prevented on account of their illiteracy from filing the appeal in time. there is no justification for the delay of 952 days in filing this appeal. the application is, therefore,.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

1. Heard on M (C) PNo. 531 of 2003. The appeal is time barred by 952 days for which the appellants have filed the above application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to seek condonation. Learned Counsel for the appellants has referred to Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act and to the decisions in Vedabai @ Vaijayantabai Baburao Patil v. Shantaram Baburao Patil and Ors. V : 2001(132)ELT15(SC) and The State of West Bengals v. The Administrator, Howrah Municipality : [1972]2SCR874a , in support of the submission that sufficient cause must be construed liberally to as to advance justice and not to thwart it. She has further referred to a decision on 1998 ACJ 1311 of the Karnataka High Court in support of her contention that ignorance of provision and illiteracy are also the causes for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondent has referred to a decision to a decision in Prakash and Anr. v. Managing Director K.S.R.T.C. and Ors. I (2000) ACC 554 (SC) : AIR 2000 SC 3419, in which the Apex Court had not condoned the delay of 416 days in filing the appeal.

2. In the present case the appellants have claimed compensation for the death of Ditya and they were granted a compensation of Rs. 1,05,000 by award dated 25.4.200 passed by the First Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, show in Claim Case No. 11 of 1998. The appellants have apparently participated in the proceedings before the Tribunal and have received the amount in accordance with the direction contained therein, in connection whereof they must have been in constant touch with their Counsel. It is, therefore, difficult to believe that they were not appraised about the limitation for filing an appeal against the inadequacy of the compensation. It, therefore, does not appear that they were prevented on account of their illiteracy from filing the appeal in time. There is no justification for the delay of 952 days in filing this appeal. The application is, therefore, dismissed.

3. The appeal is, consequently, dismissed as time barred.

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2003 Same Parties Radheshyam vs Sushil Same Subject Insurance;Motor Vehicles Same Judge S.K. Kulshresth and ;Ashok Kumar Tiwari, JJ.

Insurance;Motor Vehicles