The Allahabad High Court dismissed the First Objection (FAFO) under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 filed with a delay of 3107 days on account of the appellant, who is the sole owner of the transport company, not being informed about the status of the case. .

Judge Rajnish Kumar kept it

“A plaintiff who is so negligent as not to inquire about the status of the case during such a long period of time when the allegations are against him, and who produces and submits written statements and documents, cannot be sued. The reasons put forward are nothing but excuses for such a long time, since it cannot be said that he was prevented from applying for an appeal on time with sufficient justification, because if he did not follow the case diligently and acted negligently. delay. Such a plaintiff is not entitled to any discretion of the Court.”

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

The limitation period for filing an appeal under Article 173 of the MV Law is 90 days, which may be accepted by the Court provided sufficient cause is shown.

There was reportedly a delay of 3107 days in the appellant’s appeal. The defendant claimed in the petition that the attorney did not provide information about the decision and that the person who made the match on behalf of the defendant died 4 years ago. A second affidavit was subsequently filed alleging that the appellant was “”.“Mrs. Pardanashin” She was traumatized as her husband also died during COVID, hence the delay in her appeal.

The Court observed that the impugned order was issued 6 years before and 4 years after the death of the appellant’s (landlord) husband. It was further observed that the pariokar would act only as per the instructions of the appellant and the appellant was negligent in matching the case.

The court observed that there was no need for the opposing party’s objection since it was concluded that the reason for the delay was not sufficient.

Inside Maniben Devraj Shah Vs. Municipality Inc. Brihan Mumbai, The Supreme Court held that where the explanation for delay relief was fabricated and the applicant had been negligent in pursuing his case, the delay could not be condoned.

Inside Sheo Raj Singh and Others Vs. Union of India and Others, The Supreme Court decided that the difference between “excuse” and “explanation” was taken into account when condoning the delay. The Supreme Court found that

“When under attack by a person, an “excuse” is often offered to deny responsibility and consequences. It is a kind of defensive action. Simply calling something an “excuse” means that the explanation offered is believed to be untrue. Therefore, there is no formula that appeals to all cases and therefore, every case regarding condonation of delay based on the existence or absence of sufficient cause has to be decided on its own facts. At this stage, it is hard not to complain that only excuses, not explanations, are often accepted to tolerate long delays in order to protect the public interest from secret forces whose sole agenda is to ensure that a valuable claim does not reach the public. higher courts for trial.”

The appellant relied N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy, The Supreme Court stated that the limitation should not eliminate the rights of the parties, but it meant the following:Parties should not resort to delaying tactics and should seek a solution as soon as possible..”

Justice Kumar held that the appellant had not shown sufficient justification for condoning the delay of 3107 days. Considering that the statement made by the appellant was a fabricated story, the Court rejected the appeal.

Case Title: Bayan Supreme Transport Company, Lucknow Thru. Owner Smt. Shayaka Khan – Smt. Suman Devi And Someone Else (FIRST OBJECTION FROM DEFECTIVE ORDER No. 129 of 2024)

Click Here to Read/Download the Order