Condonation of delay under the limitation statute requires proof of sufficient cause and diligence. Administrative negligence or internal processing delays in organizations do not constitute sufficient cause, and courts must not evaluate the merits of the primary appeal when adjudicating the plea for condoning delay.

JUDGMENT :

PRANJAL DAS, J.

1. Heard Mr. Vikramjeet Devnath, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Tongpok Pongener, learned counsel and Mr. Laknyei Phom, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2.

2. The applicant/Insurance company is seeking to file an appeal under Section 173 of the MV Act, 1988 against the Judgment and Award dated 16.10.2023 passed by the learned Member, MACT, Mokokchung in MAC case No. 40 of 2018, whereby the Tribunal was pleased to award a total compensation of Rs. 23,59,800/- (Twenty Three Lakhs Fifty Nine Thousand Eight Hundred) to the claimants (respondent no. 1 and 2 herein) along with interest of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. However, there is stated to be a delay of 321 days in preferring the appeal and hence an application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, thereby giving rise to the instant interlocutory proceeding.

3. The applicant/Insurance company has narrated the grounds of delay in para 7 thereof. The applicant has also filed an additional affidavit wherein also in paragraphs 2 and 3, narration regarding the delay and its explanation thereof has been given. The explanation regarding the delay, including the various dates that emerges from para 7 of the delay condonation petition and para 2 and 3 of the additional affidavit may be enumerated in the following tabular format:-

4. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, it is stated that 5 months and 19 days lapsed from the date of receipt of the Judgment by the Panel Lawyer and processing of the same at the Head Office of the applicant at Chennai. It is also stated that though legal opinion was given on 03.05.2024 to the Head Office, but after 5 months and 19 days, the Head Office on 20.10.2024 instructed the counsel to prepare the MAC Appeal.

5. It is stated and submitted that there was delay on the part of the applicant at every stage and except for mentioning the dates and the decisions taken, there was no explanation as to why the delay had occasioned. In this backdrop, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, contends that the said statements should not be accepted as showing sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 321 days. It is also stated and contended that the applicant has taken a casual and negligent attitude and that, except mentioning dates, the applicant has failed to give any cogent reasons to condone the delay, which is also on the higher side.

6. The learned counsel for the applicant drawing attention to Paragraph 7 of the main application, and Paragraph 2 of the additional affidavit, has submitted that the said paragraphs have enumerated the explanations for the delay that occurred in filing the appeal. It is submitted that when the impugned judgment was rendered, he was not yet empanelled by the Insurance Company and only subsequently, he came to be empanelled and that this also contributed to the delay. It is submitted that in several decisions, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has indicated that a liberal approach should be adopted on the question of delay condonation.

7. He further submits that in the impugned judgment, though the claim petition was filed under Section 163A of the MV Act 1988, but the learned Tribunal stating that the 2019 amendment had abolished the