Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. JAGADEESAN
United India Insurance Company Ltd., Cuddalore
Versus
Umar (Minor) Rep. by his father guardian and another
C.M.P. No. 18222 of 1995 in C.M.A.S.R.No.44403 of 1995
Decided On : 10-09-1996
LIMITATION ACT - SECTION 5 - CONDONATION OF DELAY - ADMINISTRATIVE DELAY - NOT SUFFICIENT CAUSE - UNLESS RELEVANT DATES ARE FURNISHED - TO CONSIDER THE SUFFICIENT CAUSE IN ITS PRAGMATIC APPROACH.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner insurance company sought to condone a 30-day delay in filing an appeal against a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award. The reason given was administrative delay due to the unavailability of relevant managers who had been deputed to attend policy matters.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the mere reason of "administrative delay" without providing specific dates and details is not sufficient cause for condoning the delay. The petitioner failed to furnish relevant dates to establish bona fide action and promptness on their part.
Issues: Whether administrative delay, without specific dates and details, constitutes sufficient cause for condoning a delay in filing an appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on its earlier decision in United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pravin Paul (2) N. Periannan, 1993 (1) L.W. 68, which held that mere administrative delay, without giving details with regard to the dates, cannot be accepted as sufficient cause. The court also considered the Supreme Court's order in S.L.P.(Civil) No.4060 of 1993, which set aside the Division Bench judgment in United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pravin Paul, but noted that the Supreme Court did not discuss the legality of the order on merits.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition and rejected the memorandum of grounds of civil miscellaneous appeal.
1. This petition is to condone the delay of 30 days in filing the appeal against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal Sub-Judge) Cuddalore in MACTOP No.264 of 1990. In the affidavit, the petitioner has stated that the relevant papers relating to the O.P. and the certified copies of the judgment and decree were forwarded to the Regional Office at Madras for scrutiny by the legal department of the petitioner-insurance company to decide on the question of advisability of filing appeal. The concerned Managers, who have to take a decision, were not readily available inasmuch as they had been deputed to attend certain policy matters of importance. As such, the decision could not be taken for filing an appeal within the period of limitation. Moreover, in a Government Undertaking like the petitioner, administrative delay cannot be avoided for more reasons than one.
2. It is clear that the Tribunal has passed the award on 22-2-1995 and the certified copies of the judgment and decree were made ready on 8-3-1995. Since the limitation expires during summer vacation i.e., on 6. 1995 the appeal ought to have been filed on the reopening day. Thus, due to the administrative reasons, a delay of 30 days had caused.
3. I had an occasion to deal with another connected matter in CMP.No.2147 of 1996 in AAOSR. No. 44397 of 1995 wherein the same reason was given. Relying upon the decision of this Court reported in United India Insurance Company Ltd., Division Office, Pondicherry v. Pravin Paul (2) N. Periannan, 1993(1) L.W.68, I had dismissed the said CMP.No.2147 of 1996 on the ground that mere “administrative delay” without giving the details with regard to the dates cannot be accepted as sufficient cause. The counsel for the petitioner contended that though the application was dismissed relying upon the judgment of this Court reported in United India Insurance Company Ltd., Division Office, Pondicherry v. Pravin Paul (2) N.Periannan, 1993 (1) L.W. 68, he was not aware of the Supreme Court Judgment made in S.L.P.(Civil) No.4060 of 1993 dated 19. 1993. The judgment reported in United India Insurance Company Ltd., Division Office, Pondicherry v. Pravin Paul (2) N.Periannan, 1993 (1) L.W. 68 was set aside by the Supreme Court in S.L.P.(Civil) No.4060 of 1993.
4. The Supreme Court, by its Order date 13-9-1993 made in the S.L.P. referred to above, has passed the following Order: -
“The Special Leave Petition is disposed of.”
The Supreme Court has also passed the following order on the same day in the S.L.P. referred to above:-
“The costs of Rs. 10, 000 deposited in this Court may be sent by the Registry by way of a crossed demand draft drawn in the name of the first-respondent directly to the first-respondent.
The order of the High Court dated 17th November, 1992 dismissing the appeal as barred by time is set aside. Delay in filing the appeal before the High Court in condoned and the appeal will now be disposed of on merits. The petitioner shall pay an additional sum of Rs. 50, 000 to the first-respondent before the appeal is taken up for final hearing.”
Only on the basis of the order dated 13-91993, the counsel for the petitioner represents that the Division Bench Judgment of this Court reported in United India Insurance Company Ltd., Division Office, Pondicherry v. Pravin Paul (2) N.Periannan, 1993 (1) L.W. 68 had been overruled.
5. I am unable to agree with the contention of the counsel for the petitioner. The order can be said to have been set aside. but it cannot be said that the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court had been overruled since the Supreme Court had not discussed anything on merits. From a look at the order of the Supreme Court, it is clear that the Supreme Court had imposed certain conditions on the Insurance Company and since those conditions have been complied with, the Supreme Court condoned the delay, without considering the legality of the order of this Court reported in United Ind
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
