IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH

th

ON THE 26 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. APPEAL No. 5229 of 2018 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD. THR.

Versus RAMRAS BAGHEL AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Arvind Kumar Agrawal - Advocate for appellant- Insurance Company.

Shri Kripal Singh Batham- Advocate for respondent No.1- claimant.

Shri Sumant Msihra- Advocate for respondents No. 2 and 3 (driver and owner of vehicle)

WITH MISC. APPEAL No. 5232 of 2018 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD. THR.

Versus JEETU JATAV AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Arvind Kumar Agrawal - Advocate for appellant- Insurance Company.

Shri Kripal Singh Batham- Advocate for respondent No.1- claimant.

Shri Sumant Msihra- Advocate for respondents No. 2 and 3 (driver and owner of vehicle)

ORDER Aforesaid aforesaid miscellaneous appeals filed by the Insurance Company arise out of a common Award dated 12-02-2018 passed by the Third Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shivpuri (in short "the Claims Tribunal") in Claim Case No. 51 of 2016 and Claim Case No. 110 of 2016.

2. The Insurance Company seeks exoneration from the liability to pay the compensation amount awarded in favour of the claimants, Jeetu Jatav and Ramras Baghel. Since both appeals arise from the same accident and common award, they are heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order.

3. Along with the appeals, the Insurance Company has filed I.A. No.

4935/2018 and I.A. No. 4937/2018 respectively, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeals.

4. As per the Office note, there is a delay of 169 days in filing these appeals.

5. It is submitted on behalf of the Insurance Company that while the award was passed on 12-02-2018, the certified copy was received on 19-02-2018. The limitation period expired on 20-05-2018. It is further submitted that their counsel in the Claims Tribunal, Shri Alok Shrivastava, did not inform the Insurance Company about the Award until 30-06-2018. Subsequently, the files were moved through various administrative channels for permission from the Regional Office, Bhopal, which was granted on 10-09-2018. Further delays occurred in preparing the statutory deposit cheques and due to the Diwali vacation of the High Court from 03-11-2018 to 11-11-2018. It is contended that the delay was due to the negligence of the counsel and administrative procedural time, which is excusable.

6. Learned counsel for the claimants vehemently opposed the condonation applications, submitting that the law of limitation applies equally to private individuals and government/corporate bodies. It is argued that "bureaucratic negligence" or "administrative red-tapism" cannot be a ground for condoning a delay of 169 days. The claimants, who are victims of an accident, cannot be made to wait indefinitely for the fruits of their award due to the internal inefficiency of the Insurance Company.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that a "liberal approach"

cannot be used to condone gross negligence. In the case of Postmaster General vs. Living Media India Ltd., (2012) 3 SCC 563, the Apex Court held that "Government departments cannot claim a separate period of limitation by prescribing a different standard... The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of government departments cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used." Similarly, in the case of Esha Bhattacharjee vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy, (2013) 12 SCC 649, the Apex Court laid down tha "The concept of liberal approach has to encapsulate the conception of adjudication of disputes on merits and not to enable a party to take the law for granted." Further, in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bherulal, (2020) 10 SCC 654, the Apex Court termed such delayed filings as "Certificate Cases" and observed that The law of limitation is same for all.