##PAGE1##

CMP No. 1469 of 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 28-01-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

AND

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL

CMP No. 1469 of 2026

in

C.M.A.SR.No.207052 of 2025

The SBI General Insurance Company Ltd.,

New No.64, Old No.149,

Ground and Mezzanine Floor,

Greams Duggar,

Greams Road, Chennai.

..Appellant(s)

Vs

1. V.Ezhilarasi,

W/o.(Late) Vairakkannu,

Permanently residing at

No.2/178,Anna Terasa Veethi,

Tharangampadi,

Nagapattinam -609 313.

Now residing at

Kamarajar Colony,

Sedapalayam Post,

Cudalore Taluk.

2. V.Vikraman,

__________

Page1 of 8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/02/2026 05:51:18 pm )

##PAGE2##

CMP No. 1469 of 2026

S/o.(Late) Vairakkannu,

No.2/178,

Anna Terasa Veethi,

Tharangampadi,

Nagapattinam -609 313.

Now residing at

Kamarajar Colony,

Sedapalayam Post,

Cudalore Taluk.

3. V.Dhanusya,

D/o.(Late) Vairakkannu,

No.2/178,

Anna Terasa Veethi,

Tharangampadi,

Nagapattinam -609 313.

Now residing at

Kamarajar Colony,

Sedapalayam Post,

Cudalore Taluk.

4. Minor V.Selvaratchagan,

S/o.(Late) Vairakkannu,

(Represented by their Mother/Respondent 1),

No.2/178,

Anna Terasa Veethi,

Tharangampadi,

Nagapattinam -609 313.

Now residing at

__________

Page2 of 8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/02/2026 05:51:18 pm )

##PAGE3##

CMP No. 1469 of 2026

Kamarajar Colony,

Sedapalayam Post,

Cudalore Taluk.

5. Minor V.Rasthika,

D/o.(Late) Vairakkannu,

(Represented by their Mother/Respondent 1),

No.2/178, Anna Terasa Veethi,

Tharangampadi,

Nagapattinam -609 313.

Now residing at

Kamarajar Colony,

Sedapalayam Post,

Cudalore Taluk.

6. A.Murugan,

S/o.Arumugam,

No.52, Mariamman Koil Street,

Thalavanur, Villupuram West,

Villupuram -605 602.

..Respondent(s)

C.M.P.No.1469 of 2026: Petition filed under 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act,

1988 to condone the delay of 586 days in filing C.M.A.Sr.No.207052 of 2025.

C.M.A.SR.No.207052 of 2025: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section

173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the order dated 20.12.2023 made in

M.C.O.P.No.1113 of 2018 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

Special District Court No.1, Cuddalore.

For Appellant(s): Mr. Vinod K

__________

Page3 of 8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/02/2026 05:51:18 pm )

##PAGE4##

CMP No. 1469 of 2026

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by N.Sathish Kumar J.)

This petition has been filed to condone the delay of 586 days in filing the

above appeal against the final award passed by the Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal, Special District Court No.1, Cuddalore in M.C.O.P.No.1113 of 2018

dated 20.12.2023.

2. The reason for the delay, as stated in the affidavit filed in support of the

petition, is that the counsel before the Court below has inadvertently sent the

certified copy to another Insurance Company and he came to know about the

same only recently and thereafter, entire file was sent to High Court panel

Counsel to get advice and only after getting the advice from the High Court

counsel and the Head Office, the present appeal has been filed. Hence, there

occurred a delay of 586 days in filing the appeal and the delay is neither willful

nor wanton.

3. It is well settled law that liberal approach should be taken while

considering the application for condonation of delay, but at the same time there

should be reasonable ground and plausible reasons to condone the delay. As a

matter of right, the delay cannot be condoned particularly when there is a huge

delay.

__________

Page4 of 8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/02/2026 05:51:18 pm )

##PAGE5##

CMP No. 1469 of 2026

4. In this regard it is useful to refer the judgment of the Division Bench of

this Court in State of Tamil Nadu and Ors Vs. Melvisharam Muslim

Educational Societyreported in2018 [3] CTC 420, wherein the Division Bench

of this has held as follows:

“... Though the delay is condoned by the Court normally in a liberal

manner, the said approach cannot be extended mechanically

without any plausible explanation. What is pitted against an

ordinary litigant is also pitted against the Government before Co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document