IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Rajesh Shankar, J.
Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd., - Appellant
Versus
Anita Devi and ors. – Respondents
M. A.No. 10 of 2023
Decided On : 28-06-2024
JUDGMENT :
Rajesh Shankar, J.
The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 07.05.2022 passed by the Presiding Officer, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranchi in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 215 of 2018 whereby the appellant has been directed to make payment of compensation of Rs.14,20,000/- to the applicants.
I.A. No. 7296 of 2023
2. The present interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of the appellant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay of 147 days caused in preferring the present appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that immediately after passing of the award, the certified copy of the same was obtained and an opinion was sought to prefer an appeal against the impugned award. Thereafter, the steps were taken to get approval for the same and the entire file was sent to the higher officials. After receipt of approval, the same was forwarded to the concerned advocate for taking appropriate decision in the matter, who advised to procure all the documents as well as to deposit the statutory amount. Thus, the delay in filing the present appeal has been caused due to procedural formalities.
4. In the case of “Postmaster General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr.” reported in (2012) 3 SCC 563, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:
29. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bona fide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few.
30. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay. Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay.”
5. This Court is of the view that the law laid down in the aforesaid case is equally applicable to the Insurance Companies and they have the strict liability to explain the delay caused in taking statutory recourse. Movement of file from one table to another or one office to another, cannot be said to be a justified reason for committing delay in preferring statutory appeal. The Insurance Companies cannot be allowed to move before the Courts at any time ignoring the period of limitation prescribed under law. The delay cannot be condoned mechanically in the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation. The claim for condonation of delay made by the Insurance Companies on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including the government/Insurance Companies and the usual explanation that the file was kept pending fo
Postmaster General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr.
The law of limitation applies to all parties, and mere procedural delays are insufficient for condonation; adequate justification is required.
Statutory agencies must act with diligence in timely filing appeals; negligence does not justify delay in condonation requests.
The court determined that internal miscommunication within the insurer does not justify a delay of over 300 days in filing an appeal, emphasizing statutory obligations to act with diligence.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of 'sufficient cause' for condoning delay in filing appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Point of law: claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. T....
Point of Law : LPA is 916 days and as such the consideration to condone can be made only if there is reasonable explanation and the condonation cannot be merely because the appellant is public body. ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.