Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Battu Devanand, J.
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited – Petitioner
Versus
Magapu Venkata Lakshmi – Respondent
M.A.C.M.A. No. 4 of 2022
Decided On : 06-01-2022
Limitation Act – Section 5 – Motor vehicle accident – Claim of compensation - Condonation of delay of 1977 days - Claiming compensation for death of deceased, who died in a motor accident - 1st claimant is wife, claimants 2 and 3 are children of deceased -Tribunal after hearing both sides and upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, was pleased to allow claim application awarding compensation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from date of petition to till date of deposit into Court with proportionate costs -Tribunal held that respondent therein is directed to deposit compensation awarded in Court within two months from date of award and thereafter 3rd respondent be at liberty to recovery said amount from respondents 1 and 2 without taking any further steps and by way of executing this award - Tribunal further held that on such deposit, 1st petitioner is entitled to a sum, petitioner are entitled to a sum.
Finding of the Court:
From a consideration of view taken by this Court through decisions cited supra position is clear that, by and large, a liberal approach is to be taken in matter of condonation of delay - Consideration for condonation of delay would not depend on status of party namely Government or public bodies so as to apply a different yardstick but ultimate consideration should be to render even handed justice to the parties - Even in such case condonation of long delay should not be automatic since the accrued right or adverse consequence to opposite party is also to be kept in perspective - In that background while considering condonation of delay, routine explanation would not be enough but it should be in nature of indicating “sufficient cause” to justify the delay which will depend on backdrop of each case and will have to be weighed carefully by Courts based on fact situation - High Court in the case of General Insurance Company Limited vs. Papaganti Anusha and others in M.A.C.M.A., dismissed the application filed seeking condonation of delay of 652 days holding that there is no sufficient cause for condonation of such a huge delay.
Result : I.A. is hereby dismissed.
ORDER :
This appeal has been filed by the appellant/respondent No.3 seeking to set aside the order and decree passed in M.V.O.P.No.261 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Kakinada, dated 13.05.2019.
2. Along with the appeal, the appellant filed I.A.No.1 of 2022 seeking to condone the delay of 867days in preferring the appeal.
3. The petitioner is the Insurance Company/Appellant and the respondent Nos.1 to 3 are the petitioners/claimants in M.V.O.P.No.261 of 2016. The parties hereinafter will be referred to as arrayed in the MVOP.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the material available on record.
5. Brief facts of the case are that:
(i) The Tribunal after hearing both sides and upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, was pleased to allow the claim application awarding compensation of Rs.2,79,600/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition to till the date of deposit into Court with proportionate costs.
(iii) The Tribunal held that the respondent No.3 therein is directed to deposit the compensation awarded in the Court within two months from the date of the award and thereafter the 3rd respondent be at liberty to recovery the said amount from respondents 1 and 2 without taking any further steps and by way of executing this award. The Tribunal further held that on such deposit, the 1st petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,79,600/-, the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are entitled to a sum of Rs.50,000/- each.
(iv) The Tribunal further held that on making such deposit, the 1st petitioner is permitted to withdraw a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and rest of the amount ordered to be deposited in any nationalized bank for a period of two years and the petitioners 2 and 3 are permitted to withdraw their share of compensation at once.
6. Against the decree and award, dated 13.05.2019 in M.V.O.P.No.261 of 2016 passed by the Tribunal, the Insurance Company/Appellant, who is the 3rd respondent therein, filed the present appeal. Along with the appeal, the Insurance Company/ Appellant filed I.A.No.1 of 2022 seeking to condone the delay of 757 days in filing the appeal.
7. In the affidavit filed along with I.A.No.1 of 2022, the reasons stated by the appellant at para No.5 for the delay occurred in filing the appeal as extracted hereunder:
8. Upon perusal of the above averments, in the considered opinion of the Court, the said affidavit is filed in a routine manner and the reasons stated for the delay are vague. It is clear that the appellant failed to show sufficient cause to condone the delay of 867 days in fi
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
