In a matter filed before the Chhattisgarh High Court under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 3558 days in filing the restoration application, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi found sufficient reason to condone the delay and directed the motor accident claim to be restored in its original number.
The applicants submitted that a case was filed by them seeking compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The case was listed on 30-06-2016, when two weeks’ time was granted to remove a default. However, the default could not be removed within stipulated time and the case was dismissed on 03-08-2016.
It was asserted that the applicants were poor and illiterate persons who had engaged a counsel through the advocates representing them before the lower court, but the counsel representing them before the High Court did not inform them of the case status. It was pleaded that due to their lack of education and knowledge of legal procedures, they were entirely dependent upon others to pursue their case and that they could not take timely steps for filing the present application due to financial constraints and lack of proper legal guidance.
The Court referred to Basawaraj & Anr. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer (2013) 14 SCC 81 wherein it was held that the expression ‘sufficient cause’ mentioned in Section 5 cannot be liberally interpreted if negligence, inaction, or lack of bona fide is writ large. Reference was also made to Dwarika Prasad (D) v. Prithvi Raj Singh (2024) SCC OnLine SC 3828, and Imrat Lal & Ors. v. Land Acquisition Collector & Ors. (2014) 14 SCC 133.
The Court stated that the applicant’s explanation indicated that they remained unaware of the dismissal of their case and only came to know about the same when they contacted another counsel. It was noted that there was nothing on record to show that the delay was deliberate or mala fide. Considering the applicant’s affidavit as well as the Supreme Court’s dictum that a litigant ought not to be penalized for the fault, negligence, or inaction of his counsel, the Court found sufficient cause to condone the delay.
Thus, the matter was allowed and the delay was condoned with a direction to the Registry to restore the motor accident claim in its original number.
