Himachal Pradesh High Court Directs Bar Council Inquiry Into Widow's Complaint That Her Advocate Withdrew ₹4.16L From Motor Accident Compensation Granted To Her

A Single Bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur observed, “...Though, there is considerable delay in filing the appeal…for the circumstances narrated in the application, preponderance of probability is in favour of the plea of the applicant, indicating that there is sufficient cause which prevented her from filing the appeal for such considerable long period.”

Advocate Tim Saran appeared for the Appellants.

Brief Facts

The Appellants, including the widow of the deceased, filed an application seeking condonation of a delay of 8 years, 8 months, and 14 days in filing an appeal against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. It was alleged that their former advocate had obtained signatures on blank papers under the pretext of filing an appeal and misled the appellants by assuring them that the appeal had been filed.

Appellant No.1 alleged that the advocate had fraudulently obtained an ATM card in her name and withdrew ₹4.16 lakh from her bank account without her knowledge or consent. These facts came to light in 2023, after which she filed complaints before the Bar Council of Himachal Pradesh and the police. Her application was supported by an affidavit and documentary evidence. The respondent-insurance company did not file any reply to contest the allegations.

Reasoning of the Court

The Court noted that the applicant had filed supporting documents and an affidavit, and that the averments made in the application remained uncontroverted. Based on the principle of preponderance of probability, the Court found that the explanation offered for the delay was bona fide and deserved to be accepted.

Referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji (1987), the Court reiterated that delay ought to be condoned where refusal to do so would result in injustice. It further referred to N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy (1998), wherein the Supreme Court held that the acceptability of the explanation is more important than the length of the delay, and that technicalities should not obstruct substantial justice.

The Court observed that there was sufficient cause, stating, “For the circumstances narrated in the application, it can safely be said that preponderance of probability is in favour of the plea of the applicant, indicating that there is sufficient cause which prevented her from filing the appeal for such considerable long period.”

Accordingly, the Court allowed the application, condoned the delay of 8 years, 8 months, and 14 days, and directed that the appeal be registered. It also directed the Bar Council and Superintendent of Police, Shimla, to take appropriate action and file reports regarding the complaints submitted by the appellant.

Cause Title: Rama Devi & Ors. v. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:HHC:23397)