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.

JUDGMENT :

G. SATAPATHY, J.

1. The present Interlocutory Application in I.A. No. 213 of 2025 U/S.5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has been filed by the appellant-petitioner to condone the delay of 313 days in preferring the appeal.

2. Heard, Mr. Subrat Satapathy, learned counsel for the appellant-insurer and Mr. R.K. Pati, learned counsel for R-7 in the matter and perused the record, but none appears for R-1 to 6 despite valid service of notice of the limitation petition.

3. In support of the claim for condonation of delay, the appellant-insurer has in fact taken the following averments in paragraph 4 of the limitation petition which reads as under:-

“4. That, it is humbly submitted that after pronouncement of judgment the counsel for the Petitioner/O.P No. 2 did not inform about the pronunciation of judgment to the T.P. Hub office of the Petitioner rather remained silent. After few months the T.P. Hub office of the Petitioner received an execution notice in the month of May 2024, then on quarry the Hub office came to know about pronunciation of judgment in MAC Case No. 02/2021. Thereafter, the T.P Hub office frequently contacted the concerned advocate even either by telephone and E-mail, to provide certified copies of judgment and other relevant documents, but of no result. Finally finding no other way out one staff was deputed to contact the said concerned Advocate to get copies and opinion, then only certified copies of the entire record were obtained from 1^st MACT Jeypore and on further request the concerned advocate provided his opinion on 07.12.2024 which the office received on 17.12.2024. Thereafter, those documents scrutinized through the legal department of the T.P Hub and found the judgment/order is need to be assailed in appeal as on the date of accident the offending Bus was having no route permit, hence the company is liable from exoneration. In this regard opinions from different corners were sought for & received positive nods towards filling appeal. Then the Legal Cell forwarded the entire file in the first week of January’ 2025 to present advocate for filing appeal, but by that time it sustained delay of 323 days. Therefore, this petitioner humbly submits that delay caused due to above mentioned reasons are not intentional or deliberate from its side. True copies of mail communication between T.P Hub and conducting panel Advocate appended to this petition for better appreciation of this Hon’ble Court.”

4. In the aforesaid backdrop, Mr. Satapathy, however, submits that since there was a communication gap between the advocate and the Insurance Company, the delay has occasioned and thereby, the delay is neither intentional nor deliberate, rather is due to unavoidable cause and therefore, the delay in preferring the appeal may kindly be condoned, but Mr. R.K. Pati, learned counsel for R-7, however, submits that the delay can never be said to be not intentional, rather it is intentional and the appellant-Insurance Company is only to avoid its liability has preferred this appeal with a delay of 313 days and, therefore, the delay should not be condoned.

5. It is no doubt true that the appellant- Insurance Company has taken the plea of miscommunication between the company and its advocate which is the primary reason for condonation of delay, but it can never be disputed that the Insurance Company is a statutory body and it cannot be treated like a simple litigant, more particularly when the Insurance Company is dealing such matters day in and day out. Further, compensation to the victim of motor vehicular accident is a product of Motor Vehicle Accident Act, 1988, which is a beneficial & social legislation and the aim and objective of such Act is to provide succor to the victims of accident only to prevent them from destitution and vagrancy.