Owner-Aided Delay Inexcusable Where Award Passed in Counsel’s Presence and Statutory Policy Terms are Explicit

The appellant, an automobile firm, challenged an award dated 28.06.2022 passed by the I Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior, in MACC No. 1144/2019

The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,41,745/- to the claimant but restricted the liability of the respondent No. 3-Insurance Company to Rs. 1 Lakh, fastening the remaining liability on the appellant-owner

The appellant filed this appeal with a delay of 946 days, claiming a bona fide mistake and lack of knowledge of the award until execution proceedings

The insurance policy in question was a "Contractors’ Plant and Machinery (CPM) Policy" for a JCB machine, which explicitly capped third-party liability at Rs. 1 Lakh

1. Whether the delay of 946 days in filing the appeal should be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963

2. Whether an insurance policy can restrict third-party liability to Rs. 1 Lakh in light of Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which requires "sufficient cause" for condoning delay

H. Guruswamy & Others v. A. Krishnaiah, which held that limitation is a matter of public policy and delay shouldn't be condoned without proving the bona fides of the explanation

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Harchand Rai Chandan Lal, stating that insurance contracts must be strictly interpreted according to their natural meaning

Interpretation of the "liberal approach" for claimants in beneficial legislation (Motor Vehicles Act) as established in Thakor Tinuji v. Nanalal M. Thakker

The court found the appellant’s claim of "lack of knowledge" of the award factually incorrect, as the original award recorded the presence of the appellant’s counsel during proceedings

The court noted that while a liberal approach to delay is standard for accident victims (claimants), the appellant is a commercial firm whose bona fides appeared doubtful

On the merits, the court observed that the appellant had voluntarily opted for a Contractors' Plant and Machinery (CPM) Policy rather than a standard motor vehicle policy, and under the strict interpretation of contract law, the Rs. 1 Lakh limit agreed upon in the policy (Ex. D-1) was binding

The court held that substantial justice cannot override technical limitation periods when the delay is deliberate or due to inaction

The miscellaneous appeal was dismissed as time-barred

The court affirmed that the question of limitation is a matter of equity and sound public policy and should not be treated as a mere technicality to keep litigation pending indefinitely