Darbara Singh Vs. Paramjit Singh and anr. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/674710
SubjectMotor Vehicles
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided OnApr-07-2000
Case NumberCivil Appeal No. 2490 of 2000 Arising out of SLP (C) No. 18331 of 1996
Judge B.N. Kirpal and; Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, JJ.
Reported in(2001)9SCC352
AppellantDarbara Singh
RespondentParamjit Singh and anr.
Excerpt:
- [ b.n. kirpal and; syed shah mohammed quadri, jj.] -- motor vehicles — motor vehicles act, 1988 — s. 173(1) — appeal — delay in filing — inability of appellant to file the appeal within limitation due to the medical advice given to him for rest, held, was sufficient cause for condoning the delay — in view of the finding of the tribunal indicating no contributory negligence on part of appellant, liability of the respondents fixed by the tribunal to the extent of only 50% of the total damages awarded held to be inappropriate — respondents directed to pay the remaining 50% of the damages awarded within six weeks' time else they would also be liable to pay the interest at the rate of 12% on the said amount -- the appellant was a victim of an.....b.n. kirpal and; syed shah mohammed quadri, jj.1. special leave granted.2. the appellant was a victim of an accident and the motor accidents claims tribunal awarded rs 6 lakhs as damages but restricted liability of the respondents to the extent of 50 per cent. appeal filed against the said decision was dismissed on the ground that there was a delay of 125 days.3. we have heard the counsel for the parties.4. in our view, the reason given in the application for condonation of delay, namely, inability of the appellant to take adequate steps for filing the appeal because he was under medical advice not to move, was sufficient cause for condoning the delay. normally, we would have set aside the decision of the high court and remanded the case but we think on the facts of the present case it is.....
Judgment:

B.N. Kirpal and; Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, JJ.

1. Special leave granted.

2. The appellant was a victim of an accident and the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded Rs 6 lakhs as damages but restricted liability of the respondents to the extent of 50 per cent. Appeal filed against the said decision was dismissed on the ground that there was a delay of 125 days.

3. We have heard the counsel for the parties.

4. In our view, the reason given in the application for condonation of delay, namely, inability of the appellant to take adequate steps for filing the appeal because he was under medical advice not to move, was sufficient cause for condoning the delay. Normally, we would have set aside the decision of the High Court and remanded the case but we think on the facts of the present case it is not necessary. This is because the Tribunal has found as a fact that at the time when the accident occurred the appellant was driving on the correct side of the road and the motor car coming from the opposite side was being driven in a zigzag manner and it struck the motorcycle by coming to the wrong side of the road. In view of this finding, it would not follow that there was any contributory negligence and, therefore, restricting the compensation to Rs 3 lakhs only was incorrect. Counsel for the appellant has very fairly stated that if the amount of 50 per cent which remains due, in view of the decision now given, is paid by the insurance company within the stipulated time, then the appellant will not insist on interest at the rate of 12 per cent which had been awarded by the Tribunal on 50 per cent of the compensation which has already been received by the appellant.

5. We, accordingly, allow the appeal and hold that in the event of the insurance company paying to the appellant or depositing in the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal the amount of Rs 3 lakhs within six weeks the decree shall stand satisfied. Failing such payment/deposit, the appellant will be entitled to realize from the respondents the amount of Rs 3 lakhs plus interest at the rate of 12 per cent.

6. No costs.