The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for careful drafting of applications for condonation of delay, providing sufficient grounds for delay, and invoking the correct provision of law for condonation of delay.

ORDER :

Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.

1. The Petitioner/Appellant-Insurance Company, seeks condonation of 107 days delay in filing the Appeal, which assails the Judgment and Award of the Learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, South Sikkim, at Namchi (hereinafter, Claims Tribunal), in MACT Case No.01 of 2016 (Branch Manager, Reliance Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Smt. Jarun Maya Rai and Others) and MACT Case No.11 of 2014 (Deki Lepcha vs. Bir Bahadur Rai and Others). The Petition is purported to be under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter, MV Act), read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter, Limitation Act).

2. The grounds averred in the Petition for delay which was filed on 24-05-2018 are as follows;

“………………………………………………………………………………………

1. That this day, the petitioner/Appellant has filed an Appeal challenging the judgment and Award passed by the Learned Member, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, South Sikkim at Namchi, in MACT case No.01 of 2016 (Branch Manager Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd versus Smt. Jarun Maya Rai and others) along with the impugned judgment of MACT Case no.11 of 2014 (Deki Lepcha versus Bir Bahadur Rai and Others).

2. That the judgment in the aforesaid case was pronounced by the Ld. Claim Tribunal (sic) on 11/9/2017 as such the appeal challenging the said judgment ought to have been filed by the petitioner appellant on or before the 11/12/2017. The appeal was filed on the said date and there was no delay initially in filling (sic) the appeal before this Hon’ble Court.

3. That on the said date the said memo could not be registered due to certain defects which were cleared and re-filed before this Hon’ble Court on 01/02/2018. The delay in curing the defects was due to the sending the entire file again to its regional office at Kolkatta, taking legal opinion and sending the same for filling (sic) before this Hon’ble Court.

4. That on the said date there were again defects stating that the memo of appeal have to filed along with the petition of condonation of delay petition, hence this petition has been filed today.

5. That the application for certified copies of the judgment was made on 16/12/2013 and the same was obtained on 28/12/2013 when the information was given by its investigator. Thereafter, the entire file was sent to the Kolkatta for seeking it legal opinion in the instant matter (sic).

6. That thereafter the advocate informed the company about the said facts and finally the Appellant company had taken decision to file the appeal along with the petition of condonation of delay. There has been a delay of 107 days in filling (sic) the instant appeal before the Hon’ble High Court. There has been delay in filling (sic) the appeal but same was on account of circumstances beyond the control of parties mentioned herein above.

7. That this petition praying for condonation of delay of 107 days has been filed bonafide for the ends of justice.

8. That the accompanying memo of appeal may be read as part and parcel of this petition and the appellant may be allowed to refer and rely upon the same during the time of hearing of the petition.

9. That the appellant state that the memo of appeal has been filed on account challenging the false and fabricated insurance policy which has not been issued by the appellant company and the Learned Member Tribunal have wrongly fastened the liability upon the Appellant.

………………………………………………………………………………………”

It was thus prayed that the delay be condoned.

3. While making his verbal submissions before this Court, Learned Counsel for the Appellant admitted to some errors in the averments made in the said Petition, viz., the dates pertaining to application for certified copy of the Judgment having been made on 16-12-2013 and obtained on 28-12-2013, whereas challenge was to the Judgment in MACT Case No. 11 of 2014, dated 30-05-2015. It was further urged that the errors may be ignored by the Court which are inadvertent. That, this Court may kindly consider the pith and su