2026:CGHC:7988 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1700 of 2023

1 - Cholamandlam Ms General Insurance Company Ltd Through Officer In Charge Cholamandlam Ms. General Insurance Company Hinduja Complex, Paras Nagar Chowk, Near Railway Line Devendra Nagar Road Raipur Chhattisgarh.

... Appellant versus

1 - Gopal Singh Dhruw S/o Shri Kalyan Singh Dhruw Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Chikhali, Tehsil Arang District Raipur (C.G.)

2 - Smt. Lukeshwari Dhruw W/o Gopal Singh Dhruw Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Chikhali, Tehsil Arang, District Raipur (C.G.)

3 - Suman Sahu S/o Parasram Sahu R/o Village Khartora, P.S. Arang District Raipur (C.G.)

4 - Smt. Dulari Bai Sahu W/o Shri Kamal Narayan Sahu R/o Village Khartora (Jarve)

District Raipur (C.G.)

5 - Raipur Diesels And Auto Mobiles Through Director/manager, Near Amanaka Railway Crossing In Front Of Amanaka Railway Crossing In Front Of Bikahali G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.)

... Respondent(s)

For Appellant/Insurance Company : Mr. Shashwat Yechuri, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Shashi Bhushan Tiwari, Adv.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

Order on Board

13.02.2026

1. Heard on I.A. No.2/2023, an application for condonation of delay in filing appeal.

2. This appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company against the award passed by the learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (C.G.) in Claim Case No.23/2016 dated 27.02.2023 whereby, learned Tribunal has passed an award to the tune of Rs.5,51,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum on account of death of Ku.

Nandini Dhruv in a motor accident.

3. The Insurance Company has preferred this appeal with delay of 110 days.

4. Mr. Yechuri, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would submit that the award was passed on 27.02.2023. He would further submit that relevant documents were sent to the Head Office and thereafter, sanction was accorded and the appeal was preferred. He would further submit that there is delay of 110 days and that may be condoned.

5. Heard learned counsel for the Insurance Company at length and perused application for condonation of delay.

6. Admittedly, award was passed on 27.02.2023. As per averments made in the application for condonation of delay, documents were forwarded to the Head Office on 25.02.2023. It is further pleaded that approval was accorded by the Insurance Company and thereafter, appeal was preferred on 04.09.2023. The appellant/Insurance Company herein has not explained part of delay from 25.02.2023 to 04.09.2023, thus, in my opinion, the appellant failed to state sufficient cause of delay in application for condonation of delay.

7. Law as regards scope and jurisdiction of the Court in the matter of condonation of delay under Section 5 of Limitation Act is well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments and some judgments are as under :

(i) In the case of Ramlal Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 361, Hon. Supreme Court in para 7 has held as under:-

“7. In construing Section 5 (of the Limitation Act) it is relevant to bear in mind two important considerations. The first consideration is that the expiration of the period of limitation prescribed for making an appeal gives rise to a right in favour of the decree-holder to treat the decree as binding between the parties. In other words, when the period of limitation prescribed has expired the decree-holder has obtained a benefit under the law of limitation to treat the decree as beyond challenge, and this legal right which has accrued to the decree-holder by lapse of time should not be light-heartedly disturbed. The other consideration which cannot be ignored is that if sufficient cause for excusing delay is shown discretion is given to the court to condone delay and admit the appeal. This discretion has been deliberately conferred on the court in order that judicial power and discretion in that behalf should be exercised to advance substantial justice.”

(ii) Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P.K. Ramac