Courts will not condone a delay in filing an appeal where the applicant fails to provide detailed, verifiable evidence explaining the delay on a day-to-day basis. Blanket assertions of internal administrative file movement, absent specific timestamps and particulars, do not constitute sufficient cause to justify the exercise of judicial discretion.

ORDER :

MEENAKSHI MADAN RAI, J.

1. I.A. No.01 of 2024, is an application under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, filed by the Applicant, seeking condonation of 266 days’ delay, in filing the Appeal.

2. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that, the impugned Judgment was pronounced on 30-09-2023. The copy of the Judgment was applied for by the Applicant on 01-10-2023, and the copy made available on 10-10-2023. The Appeal ought to have been filed on 08-01-2024, but came to be filed only on 23-08-2024, resulting in the delay of 266 days’. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the delay occurred on account of the File movement that took place from the Branch Office, at Gangtok, to the Divisional Office, at Siliguri and thereafter to the Regional Office, at Kolkata and made its way back to the Branch Office, at Gangtok, after the Regional Office, at Kolkata, directed the Applicant to file the Appeal. It is contended by Learned Counsel, that apart from the grounds furnished for the delay, the instant case is fit to be heard on merits, the issue being, whether the legal heirs of the owner-cum-driver of the vehicle in accident is entitled to the compensation, over and above the Personal Accident Claim as per the Insurance Policy. That, the delay being unintentional and bona fide, may be condoned.

3. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.3, the owner of the vehicle, opposed the Petition for delay, on grounds that, the I.A. supra, does not give details of the File movement and the dates on which the File went from one office to the next. That, a general application devoid of details for delay ought not to be considered by this Court while exercising its discretion for condoning the delay. That, in two similar matters involving the same Applicant, the delay application lacking details was rejected by this Court. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.3 drew the attention of this Court to the decision in The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited vs. Mr. Om Prakash Chettri and Others ,I.A. No.01 of 2016 in MAC App. No.08 of 2016, decided by this High Court, on 19-11-2016. and The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited vs. Krishna Bahadur Chettri and Others , I.A. No.01 of 2018 in MAC App. No.07 of 2018, decided by this High Court, on 09-10-2018. where the delay applications were rejected.

4. Learned Counsel for the Respondents No.1 and 2 objected to the Petition on the same grounds.

5. Having heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the I.A. supra, it is clear that the application fails to explain the delay that occurred on a day to day basis. It is also noticed that this Court in Mr. Om Prakash Chettri (supra) and Krishna Bahadur Chettri (supra) where the same Applicant had sought for condonation of 66 days’ delay and 64 days’ delay respectively, this Court was loathe to grant condonation on grounds that “sufficient cause” had not been put forth by the Applicant. The delay in both matters was sought to be explained by a blanket ground, i.e., administrative delays sans details. The grounds in the instant Petition are also the same i.e., administrative delays, which resulted from the movement of File from one office to the next. Indeed, I am aware that the Court cannot be pedantic while considering an application for condoning the delay as when technicality and substantial justice are pitted against each other, the latter ought to be given preference. I am conscious that in an unwieldy or large organisation the File movement is imperative and necessary orders, sanctions, have to be obtained from the highest authority in the chain o