The Allahabad High Court dismissed a First Appeal from Order (FAFO) under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, filed with a delay of 3107 days, as the appellant, the sole owner of the transport company, failed to to inquire about the status of the case. .

Justice Rajnish Kumar claimed that

“A litigant, who is so negligent as not to inquire into the status of the case for such a long period when the charges are against him and has given his appearance and filed written statements and documents, cannot be prevented for sufficient reasons from preferring the appeal in time, because if he did not pursue the case diligently and was negligent in doing so, he cannot be said to have been prevented, therefore, the reasons given are only excuses for such a period long. delay. Such a litigant is not entitled to any discretion of the Court.”

The appellant Transport Company filed a first appeal against the order under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Lucknow under Sections 165, 166 and Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The period of limitation for filing an appeal under section 173 of the MV Act is 90 days which is acceptable to the Court provided sufficient cause is shown.

A delay of 3107 days was reported in the appeal filed by the appellants. The appellant claimed that the lawyer did not inform about the decision in the claim application and the person who was doing peervi on behalf of the appellant died 4 years ago. Subsequently, a second affidavit was filed alleging that the appellant is a “Mrs. Pardanashin” and since her husband had died during COVID, she was traumatized and hence there was a delay in filing the appeal.

The Court held that the contested order was pronounced 6 years before the death of the husband (owner) of the appellant and 4 years after the death. It was also observed that the pariokar would act only on the instructions of the appellant and the appellant was negligent in making the opinion of the case.

The Court observed that, as it was satisfied that the reason for the delay in condonation was not sufficient, it was not necessary to call for objections from the other party.

In Maniben Devraj Shah Vs. Municipal Body. from Brihan Mumbai, The Supreme Court held that if the explanation for the delay in condonation is found to be fabricated and the applicant was negligent in pursuing his case, the delay cannot be condoned.

In Sheo Raj Singh and others Vs. Union of India and another, The Supreme Court held that the difference between ‘excuse’ and ‘explanation’ is considered while condoning the delay. The Supreme Court held that

“An “excuse” is often offered by a person to deny responsibility and consequences when attacked. It is a kind of defensive action. To call something merely an “excuse” would imply that the explanation offered is not true. That said, there is no one-size-fits-all formula, and therefore each case of granting a delay based on the existence or absence of sufficient cause must be decided on its own facts. At this stage, we can only lament that only excuses, and not explanations, are most often accepted for approving long delays to protect the public interest from those hidden forces whose sole agenda is to ensure that a meritorious claim does not reach higher courts.”

On which the appeal was based N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy, where the Supreme Court held that the limitation should not destroy the rights of the parties but is intended to “see that the parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but promptly seek their remedy.”

Justice Kumar held that the appellant had not shown any sufficient reason to accept the delay of 3107 days. Holding that the explanation given by the appellant was a fabricated story, the Court dismissed the appeal.

Case Title: Ms. Supreme Transport Company, Lucknow Thru. Owner, Smt. Shayaka Khan v. Smt. Suman Devi and another (FIRST APPEAL FROM DEFECTIVE ORDER No. – 129 of 2024)

Click here to read/download the order