The court held that bureaucratic delays do not justify condonation of delay in appeals, emphasizing the need for diligence from all parties.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

1. Heard learned counsels appearing for the appellant.

2. This appeal is barred by 462 days. There is delay in filing of 462 days in the present appeal and for that I.A. No.6560 of 2024 has been filed for condonation of delay.

3. The appeal is preferred being aggrieved by the judgment/award dated 02.11.2022 passed in Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Case No.42 of 2014 by learned District Judge-II-cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II at Deoghar.

4. Mr. Amaresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that only on the ground of recovery right and quantum the present appeal has been filed. He submits that the permit of the vehicle was not there in spite of that the learned Court has passed the order/judgment which is not in accordance with law. He further submits that on the point of quantum also the said judgment is required to be interfered. On this ground, he submits that there is merit in the appeal and in view of that this appeal may kindly be admitted.

5. It transpires from the judgment of learned Tribunal, the compensation case was filed being Motor Vehicle Accident Claim No.42 of 2014 prayed for awarding compensation of Rs.13,50,000/- on death of Madan Tudu, who died in a tragic road accident due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle No.BR 17P 1887 and for that an FIR bearing Mohanpur P.S. Case No.229/2005 was registered and charge-sheet was submitted against the driver.

6. So far the argument advance by learned counsel appearing for the appellant with regard to the permit and violation of terms and conditions, the learned Court has framed the issue No. D on the point of violation of terms and conditions of the policy. While discussing the said, the learned Tribunal has found that the insurance company has not led any cogent evidence as to which clause or section of said insurance policy was violated by the driver and owner of the truck and in what manner and to what extent and in view of that it was answered against the insurance company. In the pleadings also the ground of permit has not been taken which is evident from the written statement as discussed in the judgment of the learned Tribunal. Thus, on merit also the appellant is not having a case and only a sum of Rs.7,46,375/- with interest of 7.5% per annum has been allowed in a death case.

7. The only ground taken in the limitation petition for condoning the delay about movement of the file from one table to another table and the delay is said to be 462 days. The appellant is a company and having all the facilities like internet, e-mail, fax in spite of that such delay has occurred and only ground is taken that in moving the file from table to table such delay has occurred. The procedural red tape was considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Postmaster General and Others vs. Living Media India Limited and Another,(2012) 3 SCC 563, wherein at paragraph Nos.25 to 30 it has been held as under :-

25) We have already extracted the reasons as mentioned in the "better affidavit" sworn by Mr. Aparajeet Pattanayak, SSRM, Air Mail Sorting Division, New Delhi. It is relevant to note that in the said affidavit, the Department has itself mentioned and is aware of the date of the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court in Office of Chief Postmaster v. Living Media India Ltd. as 11.09.2009. Even according to the deponent, their counsel had applied for the certified copy of the said judgment only on 08.01.2010 and the same was received by the Department on the very same day. There is no explanation for not applying for certified copy of the impugned judgment on 11.09.2009 or at least within a reasonable time. The fact remains that the certified copy was applied only on 08.01.2010, i.e. after a period of nearly four months.

26) In spite of affording another opportunity to file better affidavit by placing adequate material, neither the Department nor the person in-charge has filed any explanation for no