NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1924 of 2025

1 - Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Limited, Head Office Adress Raipur Branch Ward No. 25 Guru Govind Singh Ward 2nd Floor Simran Tower Pandri Road Opposite L.I.C. Building Raipur C.G. Through Its Authorized Officer.

... Appellant versus

1 - Heera Bai W/o Gour Sing Yadav, Aged About 52 Years R/o Village - Pachri Post -

Nartora P.S. - Patewa District Mahasamund C.G.

2 - Gour Singh Yadav S/o Subedar Aged About 62 Years R/o Village - Pachri Post -

Nartora P.S. - Patewa District Mahasamund C.G.

3 - Govardhan Deewan S/o Adesh Singh Diwan, Aged About 25 Years R/o Village -

Chindouli P.S. - Patewa District Mahasamund C.G.

4 - Lal Kumar Dadsena S/o Santram Dadsena Aged About 25 Years R/o Village - Pachri Post - Nartora P.S. - Patewa District Mahasamund C.G.

... Respondent(s)

For Appellant/Insurance Company : Mr. Shrivansh Gopal, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Adv.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

Order on Board

16.02.2026

1. Heard on I.A. No.3/2025, 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 Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund (C.G.) in Claim Case No.19/2022 dated 12.10.2023 whereby, learned Tribunal has passed an award to the tune of Rs.14,46,040/- with interest @ 6% per annum on account of death of Shri Bhupendra Diwan in a motor accident.

3. The Insurance Company has preferred this appeal with delay of 557 days.

4. Mr. Gopal, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would submit that the award was passed on 12.10.2023. 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 557 days and that may be condoned.

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

6. A perusal of application for condonation of delay would reveal that award was passed on 12.10.2023 and this appeal was preferred with delay of 557 days on 12.08.2025 In the application, it is nowhere stated that as to when the documents were forwarded to the office of Insurance Company and when approval was accorded, 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. Ramachandran Vs. State of Kerala, (1997) 7 SCC 556 has held in para 6 as under:-

“6. law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour whe