The Insurance Company failed to provide sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeal, leading to dismissal of their application and proposed appeal.

Vivek Singh Thakur, J . (Oral)

This application has been filed for condonation of delay in filing appeal against the award dated 27.05.2024 passed in MACP No. 43/K/II/2021/17 by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-III, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra.

2. The only ground taken to explain the delay is that Insurance Company was proceeded against ex-parte before passing of award by MACT and, therefore, the Company was not aware about passing of the award by the MACT till First week of October, 2024.

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

3. It is further case of the Insurance Company that immediately thereafter appeal was filed after seeking legal opinion and it has been stated that there was bonafide and compelling reason, and also due to location of the Insurance Company at the distant place, due to which delay has occurred in filing the appeal.

4. Applicant/Appellant is an Insurance Company having large number of Law Officers/ Legal Advisers and directory of Advocates throughout the country to assist the Company. The Insurance Company cannot equate itself with the person having no knowledge of law. Once the service of the Insurance Company before the MACT is not disputed, it was incumbent upon and legal and moral duty of the Insurance Company to ensure representation of the Insurance Company before the MACT. It is a serious lapse on the part of the Insurance Company, particularly keeping in view the fact noted above regarding the legal assistance available to the company.

5. It is also noticeable that Insurance Company including the Insurance Company, are facing numerous cases throughout the country and most of them are MACT Motor Accident Claims cases. In such eventuality, the Insurance Company had opted not to contest the MACT claim before the MACT even when it was the duty of the Company to remain vigilant about the passing an award by the MACT.

6. Insurance Company has to show and establish sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within limitation period as required under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which reads as under:-

“5. Extension of prescribed period in certain cases.-Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), may be admitted after the prescribed period, if the appellant or the applicant satisfied the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period”.

7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Postmaster General and Others Vs. Living Media India Ltd. and another, reported in (2012) 3 SCC 563 has observed as under:-.

“28. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody, including the Government. 29. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bona fide effort, there s no need to accept the usual explaination that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red tape in the process. The government