The High Court of Kerala has reaffirmed that courts cannot extend leniency to litigants who misrepresent facts to seek condonation of delay, particularly when they falsely claim non-receipt of summons in motor accident claims proceedings. This judgment underscores the judiciary’s zero-tolerance for procedural fraud and reinforces the principle that justice must not be manipulated through deceit.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Ajith Kumar P.V., sought to set aside an ex parte award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT), Kottayam, on 5 May 2023, which awarded over ₹5,42,000 to the claimants. The petitioner filed an application under Section 17 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to condone a delay of 514 days in filing the application to set aside the award. He claimed he never received notice of the proceedings, thereby justifying his non-appearance.
Procedural History
- 5 May 2023: MACT passed ex parte award in favor of claimants.
- 23 April 2024: Claimants filed Execution Petition (E.P. No. 34 of 2024) to enforce the award.
- 29 October 2024: Petitioner filed I.A. No. 2/2024 seeking condonation of delay and setting aside the award, alleging non-receipt of summons.
- 21 April 2025: MACT dismissed the application, finding that summons were duly served and acknowledged by the petitioner.
- 98 of 2025: Petitioner filed Original Petition before the Kerala High Court challenging the MACT’s order.
- 10 July 2025: High Court issued interim order directing petitioner to deposit ₹1,00,000 as a condition for stay.
- 12 January 2026: Interim stay vacated due to non-compliance.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought condonation of delay and setting aside of the ex parte award, claiming he was unaware of the proceedings due to non-receipt of notice.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether condonation of delay under Section 17 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can be granted when the petitioner falsely asserts non-receipt of summons, despite evidence proving service and acknowledgment.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the failure to receive notice was an inadvertent oversight, not a deliberate act. They contended that the petitioner’s subsequent filing of the application demonstrated bonafide intent to contest the award and that the delay should be excused under the equitable doctrine of sufficient cause. Reliance was placed on State of U.P. v. Ramesh Kumar for the proposition that technicalities should not defeat substantial justice.
For the Respondent/Claimants
The respondents countered that the petitioner’s claim of non-receipt was demonstrably false, as the MACT records showed acknowledgment of summons. They emphasized that fraud vitiates all proceedings and that allowing such applications would encourage abuse of process. They cited K. Srinivasan v. MACT to argue that courts must not reward litigants who mislead tribunals.
The Court's Analysis
The Court conducted a meticulous review of the MACT’s records and found that the summons were not only issued but also acknowledged by the petitioner. The Tribunal’s finding that the petitioner had filed a petition stating falsehood was supported by documentary evidence. The Court held that sufficient cause cannot be established where the petitioner’s own conduct is tainted by misrepresentation.
"There is nothing to show that there was any sufficient cause for the petitioner to contest the matter before the Tribunal. Under such circumstances, I am not inclined to show any indulgence to the petitioner."
The Court rejected the petitioner’s reliance on equitable principles, noting that equity aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights and then resort to falsehood. The Court emphasized that procedural integrity is foundational to the adjudicatory process, particularly in claims tribunals where claimants are often vulnerable. The petitioner’s failure to comply with the interim deposit order further undermined his claim of bonafides.
The Verdict
The petition was dismissed. The Court held that condonation of delay cannot be granted where the petitioner falsely claims non-receipt of notice, and that fraudulent representation nullifies any claim of sufficient cause. The MACT’s order dismissing the application with a cost of ₹1,000 was upheld.
What This Means For Similar Cases
False Claims Nullify Sufficient Cause
- Practitioners must advise clients that any misstatement regarding service of notice will be fatal to applications for condonation of delay.
- Courts will scrutinize service records rigorously; oral assertions without documentary corroboration will not suffice.
Interim Orders Are Not Optional
- Failure to comply with interim conditions (e.g., deposit of money) will result in automatic vacation of stay, as seen here.
- Non-compliance is treated as evidence of bad faith and undermines the petitioner’s credibility.
Tribunals Have Discretion to Penalize Abuse
- Tribunals may impose costs for filing false applications, as done here, and such orders are now firmly upheld on appeal.
- Lawyers must conduct due diligence before filing applications seeking to set aside ex parte orders - reckless filings risk sanctions.
