When seeking condonation of delay, the 'sufficient cause' must trace back to events occurring within the statutory limitation period. A party cannot establish 'sufficient cause' based on events transpiring after the limitation has expired, especially where the applicant failed to exercise due diligence in monitoring their legal proceedings.

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 Applicants, seeking condonation of delay, in filing the Appeal.

2. Learned Counsel for the Applicants advanced the argument that the Learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gangtok, Sikkim (hereinafter, the “MACT”), pronounced the impugned Judgment, in MACT Case No.03 of 2021 (Selina Bibi and Others vs. The Branch Manager, Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company and Others), on 21-08- 2023, whereupon the Memo of Appeal was to have been filed on or before 19-11-2023.

3. However, the delay of 357 days’ occurred on account of the following grounds;

(i) After obtaining the impugned Judgment on 12-09-2023, it was forwarded to the Branch Office, at Siliguri, on 15-09-2023.

(ii) From the Siliguri Office, it was forwarded to the Regional Office, at Kolkata, on 30-09-2023.

(iii) The Kolkata Office sent the File to its Legal Department on 15-10-2023 for opinion.

(iv) On 30-10-2023, the Legal Department opined that Appeal ought to be filed.

(v) The File was returned to the Regional Office, at Kolkata, on 02-11-2023.

(vi) On 15-11-2023, the Siliguri Office received the File.

(vii) On 03-12-2023, the File was handed over to the Learned conducting Counsel, Mr. Manish Kumar Jain, who also received the security deposit cheque for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) only, and deposited it before the Learned MACT on 21-12-2023.

(viii) Thereafter, the Learned Counsel failed to file the Appeal and remained untraceable.

(ix) On 16-10-2024, the File was taken back from the conducting Counsel.

(x) The Memo of Appeal was then prepared on 21-10- 2024 and filed on 11-11-2024.

The delay having been explained with sufficient cause, may be condoned and the Appeal admitted.

4. Learned Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 6 on the other hand submitted that, apart from the fact that the sufficient cause for the delay has not been put forth, the conduct of the Applicants is also not above board, for the reason that, after the pronouncement of the impugned Judgment on 21-08-2023, wherein compensation of Rs. 23,62,843/- (Rupees twenty three lakhs, sixty two thousand, eight hundred and forty three) only, was granted to the Claimants-Respondents No.1 to 6, since the Applicants failed to make good the compensation, after almost a year the Respondents No.1 to 6, were before the Learned MACT, in MACT (Execution) Case No.09 of 2024 (Selina Bibi and Others vs. The Branch Manager, Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company and Another), with the Execution Petition filed on 03- 09-2024. Notice was issued to the Applicants as Judgment Debtors (hereinafter, the “JDs”), on the same date. The JDs thereafter entered appearance in the matter on 21-10-2024, through their Counsel before the Learned MACT as well as on 15-11-2024 i.e., dates fixed by the Learned MACT. On 15-11-2024, the Bank Account of the Judgment Debtors were ordered to be attached for a sum of Rs. 32,06,245/- (Rupees thirty two lakhs, six thousand, two hundred and forty five) only, inclusive of the interest accrued. On 21-11-2024, the execution proceeding was completed with payment of compensation completed and MACT (Execution) Case No.09 of 2024 disposed of. Although, the Counsel for the JDs had appeared before the Learned MACT, no prayer was made by them for stay of the execution proceedings. Besides, the delay of 357 days’ has not been sufficiently explained, as the movement of File and reasons for non-filing of Appeal by the Counsel, engaged previously, have not been explained. Hence, the application does not deserve