Lawyer Accused Of Misusing Widow’s Signature To Withdraw MACT Award | Himachal Pradesh High Court Orders Inquiry And Condones 8-Year Delay In Appeal
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Himachal Pradesh Single Bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur allowed an application seeking condonation of an extraordinary delay of 8 years, 8 months, and 14 days in filing an appeal for enhancement of compensation. The Court, invoking principles laid down by the Supreme Court regarding liberal interpretation of "sufficient cause," directed that the appeal be registered and notices be issued. The Bench also issued specific instructions to the Bar Council of Himachal Pradesh and Superintendent of Police, Shimla, to address alleged misappropriation of compensation funds by the appellants’ former counsel.
The applicants-appellants filed CMP(M) No. 1658 of 2024 before the High Court, seeking condonation of delay in filing an appeal against an award announced on August 1, 2015, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The claim was initiated on account of the death of the husband of applicant No.1, who was the father of applicants No.2 and No.3 and the son of proforma respondent No.3.
According to the appellants, after the award was pronounced, their counsel before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Advocate Mr. Harish Sharma, obtained the signature of appellant No.1 on blank papers, citing their necessity for releasing the compensation amount and for filing an appeal before the High Court. The appellants contend that they consistently inquired about the filing status of the appeal and the release of the remaining compensation.
The appellants stated that they received a sum of Rs. 6,00,000 as the first installment, of which Rs. 3,50,000 was paid to the said advocate as fee. The counsel allegedly insisted that the remainder of the compensation amount would only be released upon payment of his fee. Despite regular inquiries, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, the counsel allegedly delayed action, assuring that the balance amount would be received soon.
In 2023, appellant No.1 discovered during a visit to the State Bank of India branch where she had opened her account that a sum of Rs. 4,16,000 had been credited and withdrawn from her account via an ATM card issued in her name. She immediately contacted the counsel, who denied any knowledge of the transaction. The appellant later learned that no appeal had ever been filed, and the said amount had been released based on an application filed by the counsel, allegedly without her knowledge.
Appellant No.1 subsequently filed a complaint against the advocate before the Chairman of the Bar Council of Himachal Pradesh on December 12, 2023. Additionally, a complaint was submitted to the Superintendent of Police, Shimla, on November 20, 2023. The appellant reported that she visited the Sunni Police Station multiple times, and her statements were recorded, but she received no further updates.
The present application for condonation of delay was supported by an affidavit and accompanied by copies of the complaints and postal receipts. Notably, the respondents did not contest the application.
The Court extensively referenced various Supreme Court precedents to analyse the principle of "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The following judicial observations were recorded:
"The legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on merits."
"Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion."
"There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay."
Quoting Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji, State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani, and N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy, the Court held that technical considerations should not prevail over substantial justice. The following additional observations were also recorded: "Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly."
"If the explanation does not smack of mala fides or it is not put forth as part of a dilatory strategy the court must show utmost consideration to the suitor."
"Courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice."
Referring to Brahampal v. National Insurance Co. and Balwant Singh v. Jagdish Singh, the Court underlined the role of reasonableness in evaluating delay and warned that accrued rights of the opposing party should also be weighed.
The Court held that the appellants had demonstrated reasonable diligence, and the circumstances narrated, supported by affidavit and documentation, established a bona fide case for condonation. Since the respondents chose not to contest the application, the Court found the appellants’ plea probable and credible.
The Court issued the following directions in conclusion:
"Before disposing of the application, for peculiar facts and circumstances, I am constrained to direct the Chairman, Bar Council of Himachal Pradesh as well as Superintendent of Police, Shimla, to look into the matter personally and ensure to take complaint/application to its logical end, in accordance with law, in a time bound manner and to communicate the action taken on the complaint to applicant No.1-appellant immediately as well as to this Court through Registrar (Judicial) well before next date of hearing."
"In view of above discussion, delay in filing the appeal is condoned with aforesaid directions."
"Registry is directed to transmit copy(ies) of this order to the Chairman, Bar Council of Himachal Pradesh and Superintendent of Police, Shimla, for necessary action on their part."
"Application is allowed and disposed of. FAO No. of 2025 (FAOST/11710/2024), Appeal be registered."
"Notice to respondents, returnable on next date of hearing, on taking steps within a week, be issued. Records be requisitioned. List for further orders on 10.09.2025."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Appellants: Ms. Tim Saran, Advocate
Case Title: Rama Devi and others v. Shiri Ram General Insurance Company Limited and others
Neutral Citation: 2025: HHC:23397
Case Number: CMP(M) No.1658 of 2024
Bench: Justice Vivek Singh Thakur
