* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Reserve: May, 25, 2010
Date of Order: June 04, 2010
+ CM 11722 of 2009 in MAC APP 402/2009
% 04.06.2010
National Insurance Co. Ltd. ...Appellant
Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate
Versus
Ranjita Ghosh & Ors. ...Respondents
Through: Mr. R.D. Tyagi and Mr. Daleep Mishra, Advocates
for R-1 to 5
AND
+ CM 12079 of 2009 in MAC APP 410/2009
%
04.06.2010
National Insurance Co. Ltd. ...Appellant
Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Advocate
Versus
Bhaskar & Ors. ...Respondents
Through: Mr. G. Tushar Rao, Advocate
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?
MAC Appeals No.402 & 410 of 2009 Page 1 Of 3
ORDER
1. By this order, I shall dispose of above applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay made by the appellants along with appeals seeking condonation of delay of 169 days.
2. The grounds, as given in the applications by appellants/insurance company are that the insurance company was maintaining a panel of advocates in conducting its cases and each one of the panel advocate is supposed to send his legal opinion to the insurance company on the merits of the judgment/ award passed by the Tribunal in the case handled by him. In the present case, the panel advocate had not forwarded his legal opinion on the order passed by the Tribunal, soon after passing the award and this opinion of the advocate was received much after the passing of award and once the opinion was received, the appeal was filed by one of the panel advocates without further delay. The delay of 169 days in filing the appeal occurred because of non-sending of opinion by the panel advocate in time.
3. The applications in fact disclose no ground for condonation of delay. Inaction, sluggishness or casualness of the appellants or any of the agents of appellants is no ground for condonation of delay. The plea that since the panel advocate of the insurance company did not send opinion in time the MAC Appeals No.402 & 410 of 2009 Page 2 Of 3 delay of 169 days in filing the appeals be condoned is contrary to provisions of Section 5 of Limitation Act. Rather it is a mockery of the provisions of Limitation Act. The delay can be condoned only under those circumstances where the litigant has been diligent but despite diligence, there were such intervening circumstances which were not within his control and he could not file appeal in time or he had some such reasonable and plausible grounds which prevented him from filing the appeal in time. Non-furnishing of opinion by the panel advocate or not seeking opinion by the insurance company/appellant in time from its Advocate is no ground for condonation of delay. I find no force in the applications for condonation of delay. The applications as well as the appeals are hereby dismissed.
June 04, 2010 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J. rd MAC Appeals No.402 & 410 of 2009 Page 3 Of 3