P. S. NARAYANA, J.

( 1 ) HEARD Mr. Kota subba Rao, the counsel representing the petitioner New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Mr. D. V. Reddy, the learned counsel representing the respondent No. 5 owner of the vehicle.

( 2 ) THIS civil miscellaneous application is filed for condonation of delay of 163 days in filing the appeal in O. P. No. 843 of 1998, dated 31. 12. 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-III Additional District Judge, Guntur. The reasons had been explained in paras 2 to 5 of the affidavit filed in support of the application. It was stated that in the above case the judgment was pronounced on 31. 12. 2001; the copy application was filed on 3. 1. 2002; stamps were called for on 14. 2. 2002 and deposited on 14. 2. 2002; copy was made on 15. 2. 2002 and delivered on 18. 2. 2002; and the appeal had to be preferred on or before 13. 5. 2002. It was also stated that they have asked to ascertain the financial status of the owner of the vehicle also by the learned counsel and they had requested the local office, Guntur and they had appointed one Shaik Ahmed sharief as investigator in that regard that he had also submitted his report only on 26. 9. 2002 which was received by them on 9. 10. 2002. In this process, there was a delay of 163 days in filing the appeal and in view of the fact that this delay was caused for the reasons beyond their control as explained above. Hence, the delay of 163 days may be condoned,

( 3 ) MR. Kota Subba Rao, the learned counsel for petitioner had submitted that this is an appeal preferred by New India assurance Co. Ltd. and the procedural formalities had to be complied with and the administrative delay in preferring appeals after obtaining necessary opinion and also after following the process, is but common and natural and in the light of the facts and circumstances explained in detail, the delay of 163 days may be condoned.

( 4 ) PER contra, Mr. D. V. Reddy, counsel representing the respondent No. 5 owner of the vehicle, had opposed stating that the reason given will not fall within the meaning of sufficient cause under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and hence, the applications are liable to be dismissed. The learned counsel also further submitted that the allegations made in para 5 of the affidavit filed in support of the application are routine allegations which will be made in cases of this nature and hence, since the appellant New India Assurance Co. Ltd. failed to explain sufficient cause by giving convincing reasons, the application is liable to be dismissed.

( 5 ) HEARD both the counsel.

( 6 ) THE facts had been explained supra and need not be repeated again. The appellant is New India Assurance Co. Ltd. , represented by the Branch Manager. Apart from giving the dates, it was also specifically stated that the company had requested the local office at Guntur and they have appointed one Shaik Ahmed Sharief as investigator in relation to ascertainment of the financial status of the owner of the vehicle also. In the question of ascertaining the liability and also while taking a decision whether to prefer an appeal or not, these are relevant questions in the opinion of the appellant company and hence in the light of such reasons which had been given, it cannot be said that sufficient cause within the meaning of section 5 of the limitation Act had not been explained at all. It is no doubt true that insurance companies are expected to be more careful and cautious in preferring the appeals within time as far as possible. But however, there may be cases because of the reasons beyond the control of the concerned officials or because of the delay in obtaining the opinion or any other delay in the administrative process. If such delay caused is not condoned, the insurance company definitely will suffer and it is needless to say that the result will be affecting the public money and the public interest. It is pertinent to note that in between consideration of sufficien

Click Here to Read the rest of this document