CRP/3571/2007 of Mrs. Konathala Laxmi, Vs Vanapalli Appa Rao, on 28 December 2012

ORDER: -

This revision is preferred by the claimants in M.O.P.No.832 of2002 on the file of VI Additional District Judge-cum-Motor AccidentsClaims Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, dated 04.06.2007.

The said O.P. was filed claiming compensation of Rs.3,50,000/-on account of the death of the husband of the 1[st] petitioner and father ofthe 2[nd] petitioner, who died in a road accident involving Tractor bearingNo.AIV 545 and Trailor bearing No.AIV 546. The said vehicle is said tobe insured by the 3[rd] respondent and owned by the 2[nd] respondent andwas being driven by the 1[st] respondent. The said O.P. appears to havebeen dismissed for non-prosecution on 29.07.2004. Petitioners hereinfiled application for restoration of the said O.P. along with an applicationviz., I.A.No.143 of 2007 for condonation of delay of 879 days inpresenting the application for restoration. The said application wascontested by the insurance company and by order of the Court below, dated 04.06.2007, impugned herein, the application for condonationwas dismissed by holding that the petitioner has not substantiated thecause for delay by producing any medical certificate or other evidence. This revision is directed against the aforesaid order.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel forthe 2[nd] respondent-owner of the vehicle. This revision was dismissed indefault against the 1[st] respondent-driver of the vehicle by order of thisCourt, dated 08.08.2011. However, nobody appears for the 3[rd]respondent in spite of service.

The description of the petitioners in the O.P., as well as theaverments in the affidavit of the 1[st] petitioner show that she is workingas a labourer and the compensation case was filed on account of thedeath of the husband of the 1[st] petitioner on 19.04.2001 in the accidentinvolving the vehicle referred to above. It seems that the 2[nd] petitionersuffers from ill health and is not able to do any work and as such thoughhe is a major, both the petitioners depended on the deceased and thecompensation case was filed only to ensure that the widow of thedeceased and the son of the deceased, who is suffering from ill health,to get some financial support.

The affidavit filed by the 1[st] petitioner states that she along withher son went to Kharagpur to her sister’s house and was living thereand was doing labourer work there. She submitted that there she fell illand was accordingly held up at Kharagpur and due to sickness, shecould not follow up the case. She contacted her counsel and she wasinformed of the dismissal of the case. She, therefore, came toKasimkota, contacted the counsel and filed the present application. Except respondent No.3 other respondents could not contest the saidapplication as the counter appears to have been filed only by the 3[rd]respondent herein. The court below, however, dismissed the application for condonation on the ground that medical certificate is notproduced and has applied the principles relating to land acquisitionappeals and the delays therein by the Government for considering theapplication for condonation.

I am unable to appreciate the reasoning of the lower court and itsapproach. The Court below ought to have seen that the claim forcompensation ought to be viewed with the object of the provision beingbeneficiary to provide financial compensation on account of theaccidental death of the victim of the motor accident. The Court belowalso should have kept in mind that the petitioners, who had filed thecompensation case, would not stand to gain by not prosecuting it anddelaying it for a longer period. The 1[st] petitioner being a labourer andthe 2[nd] petitioner being a person suffering from ill health, which is notcontraverted, the Court below ought to have adopted a liberal approachand ought to have allowed the prosecution of the said compensationcase on merits.

So far as the delay is concerned, this Court would, therefore, beinclined to condone the delay subject to payment of appropriate costs. However, since the petitioner is a labourer herself, it may not beappropriate to direct payment of costs. Instead, therefore, it would be justand appropriate to deny benefit of interest for the period from the date ofdefault till today in the event of success of the petitioner in the motorvehicle case. Impugned order is, accordingly, set aside.

The Civil Revision Petition is allowed. Applications forcondonation and restoration shall stand allowed subject, however, theCourt below ensure that in the event of the petitioners succeeding in thesaid M.O.P.No.832 of 2002, interest for the period from the date ofdismissal on default i.e., 29.07.2004 till this date shall not be granted tothe petitioners.

Subject to the above, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The miscellaneous applications, if any, stand dismissed. There shall be noorder as to costs.

28.12.2012lmv

_____________________________

VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR

lmv

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3571 of 2007

28.12.2012