Digitally signed by SIDDHANT S TA ID M D R H A A K N A T R 2026:CGHC:12401 TAMRAKAR Date:

2026.03.16

16:09:33 +0530 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1669 of 2024 • Manager, Chola Mandalam M.S. General Insurance Company Limited, In-

front Of Jivan Bima Nigam Office, Simran Tower, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Vehicle Tractor Kubota No. C.G. 06 Gs/0609)

... Appellant(s)

versus

1. Bhushan Lal Yadav S/o Chhotu Ram Yadav Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Ward No. 10 Tikrapara Churki, Post Mohandi, Thana Khailari, Tehsil Bagbahara, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh (Claimants)

2. Ahilya Bai Yadav W/o Bhushan Lal Yadav Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Ward No. 10 Tikrapara Churki, Post Mohandi, Thana, Khallri, Tehsil Bagbahara, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh (Claimants)

3. Loknath Sahu S/o Ghanshyam Sahu Aged About 39 Years Occupation Agriculture, Resident Churki, Thana Khallari, Tehsil Bagbahara, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh (Driver Of Accident Vehicle Tractor Kubota No.

Cg 06 Gs/0609)

4. Ghanshyam Sahu S/o Antaram Sahu Aged About 60 Years Occupation Agriculture, R/o Churki, Thana Khallari, Tehsil Bagbahara, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh (Registered Owner Of Accident Vehicle Tractor Kubota No. Cg 06 Gs/0609)

... Respondent(s)

For Appellant/Insurance : Mr. Ashish Pandey, Advocate holding the brief Company of Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

Order on Board

16.03.2026

1. Heard on I.A. No. 01/2024, an application for condonation of delay in filing appeal.

2. The Insurance Company has preferred this appeal assailing the judgment and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund passed in Claim Case No. H-88/2022 dated 04.12.2023, whereby, the learned Tribunal granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on account of death of Takeshwar @ Takesh.

3. The appellant herein has preferred this appeal with delay of 160 days.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company would submit that award was passed on 04.12.2023, whereas, appeal has been preferred on 12.08.2024 with delay of 160 days. He would contend that copy of the documents along with an award was sent to the company office at Raipur and the documents were subsequently forwarded to Regional office, Indore. He would contend that thereafter sanction was accorded and appeal was filed. He would submit that the Insurance Company has explained delay part properly.

5. I have heard Mr. Pandey at length and perused the application for condonation of delay with utmost circumspection.

6. Perusal of application would show that the appellant/Insurance Company has not explained delay properly. The appellant herein has filled banks and mentioned period of delay. It is nowhere stated that when documents were forwarded to the company at Raipur and when those documents were further forwarded to Regional office, Indore. It is also not stated as to when sanction was accorded and when counsel for Insurance Company was instructed to prefer an appeal.

7. Recently, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of H. Guruswamy & Ors.

Versus A. Krishnaiah Since Deceased by Lrs., 1. [2025] 1 SCR 764 held courts cannot use a

"liberal approach" to condone inordinate, unjustified delays caused by a party's own negligence. Relevant paras of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced herein below :-

“13. We are at our wits end to understand why the High Court overlooked all the aforesaid aspects. What was the good reason for the High Court to ignore all this? Time and again, the Supreme Court has reminded the District judiciary as well the High courts that the concepts such as "liberal approach", "Justice oriented approach", "substantial justice" should not be employed to frustrate or jettison the substantial law of limitation.

16. The length of the delay is definitely a relevant matter which the court must take into consideration while considering whether the delay should be condoned or not. From t