Back
2009 Supreme(Mad) 5863
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
T. Sundanthiram, J.
National Insurance Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
S. Sarada and Others – Respondents
M.P. No. 1 of 2009 in C.M.A. SR. No. 3731 of 2009
Decided On : 01-07-2009
For the Appellant : Srinivasan Ramalingam
For the Respondent: S. Gangaram Prasad
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a liberal and pragmatic approach in interpreting 'sufficient cause' for condoning delay under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Headnote:
Delay Condonation - Motor Vehicles Act - Section 173(1) - [Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act] - The court discussed the provisions of Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, which allows for the condonation of delay in filing an appeal against the award of Claims Tribunal. The court emphasized the need to show 'sufficient cause' for the delay and highlighted the liberal construction required for interpreting 'sufficient cause' as per precedent decisions.
Fact of the Case:
The National Insurance Co. Ltd. filed a petition seeking condonation of delay in filing a civil miscellaneous appeal against the judgment passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The delay of 253 days was attributed to administrative exigencies and procedural delays within the insurance company.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay was due to administrative exigencies and procedural processes within the insurance company, and therefore, 'sufficient cause' was shown for condoning the delay.
Issues: The main issue was whether the delay in filing the appeal could be condoned based on 'sufficient cause' as per Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for a liberal construction of 'sufficient cause' and highlighted the pragmatic approach required in interpreting the provision. It considered the impact of administrative delays and the need to balance the interests of the parties involved.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition for condonation of delay, citing 'sufficient cause' and imposed a cost of Rs. 1,000 on the Petitioner.
T. Sundanthiram, J.
The Petitioner National Insurance Co. Ltd. has filed this petition u/s 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking condonation of delay of 253 days in filing the civil miscellaneous appeal against the judgment passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Second Small Causes Court), Chennai in M.C.O.P. No. 1451 of 2004 dated 27.11.2007.
2. Baskara Rao, Administrative Officer of the Petitioner insurance company has filed an affidavit setting out the reasons for the delay in preferring the appeal. Admittedly, the judgment was delivered on 27.11.2007, copy application was made on 30.11.2007 and copies were made ready on 1.2.2008 and delivered on 2.2.2008. They by way of procedure adopted in the Divisional Office, for deciding the fact whether to prefer an appeal, certified copies of deposition of witnesses were to be obtained and on careful examination, it was decided to prefer an appeal by last week of March 2008. Unfortunately, thereafter during the exercise of annual audit and review, the file relating to this claim got mixed up with the other closed files and it could be traced only after some time. In the meantime, as attachment proceedings were taken by the opposite party, a cheque for total amount of the award was also handed over to the court bailiff on 11.2.2008. A letter dated 29.12.2008 being sent to the counsel, he had prepared the appeal papers and filed it on 12.1.2009. In the said process, there had been delay of 253 days in preferring the appeal.
3. The Respondent No. 1 herein is the claimant who is the wife of the deceased. The Respondent No. 2 is the owner of the vehicle who had remained ex parte before the trial court. The Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 herein are the parents of the deceased and though they were originally shown as claimants in the application before Tribunal, subsequently they have been made as Respondents and they have also remained ex parte. The effective notice was served only to the Respondent No. 1 who is now represented by a counsel. The Respondent No. 1 herein has filed a counter objecting for condoning the delay. It is stated in the affidavit of the Respondent No. 1 that the delay of 253 days is enormous and the reasons given by the Petitioner as administrative exigencies are not valid and the insurance company being a government undertaking cannot be equated with the government and the delay due to administrative exigencies is untenable.
4. This Court heard both parties. Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 strenuously contended that each and every day's delay has to be explained and by merely making a statement that the delay was due to administrative exigencies is not acceptable and the negligence and carelessness which resulted in the enormous delay of 253 days should not be condoned and if a lenient view is taken by a court, it may cause prejudice to the claimant-Respondent No. 1 herein. Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 also relied on the decision of this Hon'ble court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pravin Paul 1993 (1) LW 68 and the decision of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in New India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others Vs. Smt. Keshar and Others, (1996) ACJ 1057 : AIR 1996 Raj 28 in which petitions for condonation of delay of 131 days and 16 days respectively filed by the insurance company were dismissed.
5. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner insurance company submitted that the insurance company being a public sector organization, procedures and practices of processing claim and appeal against awards have been set up and the considerations are made at various levels and administrative exigencies are to be followed.
6. The learned Counsel further submitted that here the application is filed under second proviso to Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act and as per second proviso to Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 'sufficient cause' has been shown for the delay and the expression 'sufficient cause' should receive the liberal construction which
