Cholamandal Ms General Insurance ... vs Shaik Ghoisa Begum
2024 Latest Caselaw 8742 AP

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Cholamandal Ms General Insurance ... vs Shaik Ghoisa Begum on 20 September, 2024

        HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
                                                                       15
             MAIN CASE No: MACMA.No.459 of 2022

                        PROCEEDING SHEET

SL.   DATE                            ORDER                           OFFICE
NO.                                                                    NOTE
12. 20.09.2024   BSB, J

                                  I.A.No.1 of 2022

                       This petition is filed to condone the delay
                 of (77) days in filing the M.A.C.M.A against the
                 decree and judgment dated 26.03.2022 passed
                 in M.V.O.P.No.51 of 2020 on the file of
                 the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum-V
                 Additional District Judge, Rayachoty.

                       The contention of the petitioner is that
                 after obtaining the copy of the judgment dated
                 29.09.2022, the same was sent for the opinion
                 of the Advocate on record and thereafter to
                 Regional Office and Head Office and later
                 finally the legal opinion was sent to Regional
                 Office, Visakhapatnam, and the procedure led
                 to delay of (77) days in filing the appeal and
                 thus the delay is neither wilful nor wanton.

                       The petitioner was opposed by filing the
                 counter and denying the reasons stated for the
                 delay and further contending that the affidavit is
                 silent as to why they could not file the affidavit   Contd...
                                        2
                                                                        BSB, J
                                                          MACMA.No.459 of 2024


SL.     DATE                               ORDER                           OFFICE
NO.                                                                         NOTE

      25.07.2024   within a period of limitation and the reasons
                   stated therein are not sufficient to condone the
                   delay and that the reasons disclose the callous
                   attitude of the petitioner in pursuing the case.

                         Heard the learned counsels on both
                   sides. The notice was sent to 2nd respondent

who remained ex-parte before the Tribunal. The same was returned with an endorsement "Not in Town". Under these circumstances, further notice to 2nd respondent is dispensed with.

It is incorrect to state that petitioner failed to give reasons accountable to the delay. What is to be examined is sufficiency of the reason for the delay. The process of seeking opinion passing through different branches would normally delay the filing of appeal due to administrative reasons. In the present case, the length of the delay is not abnormal.

In view of the serious grounds of contentions raised in the appeal, the approach of the petitioner does not appear to be casual or callous. As such, it is a case fit to allow the petition by condoning the delay, as there is sufficient reason for the delay established.

Contd...

                                                                 BSB, J



SL.   DATE                         ORDER                        OFFICE
NO.                                                              NOTE

In the result, the petition is allowed.

___________________ B.S. BHANUMATHI, J

Admit Appeal.

Post on 04.10.2024 for 'Hearing'.

__________________ B.S. BHANUMATHI, J DSV