[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. ... vs Smt. Sharada Santosh Chavhan And Ors. on 3 February, 2026
2026:BHC-AS:5526
ppn 1 33.ia-575.21.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Digitally signed CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
by PRACHI
PRACHI PRANESH
PRANESH NANDIWADEKAR
NANDIWADEKAR INTERIM APPLICATION NO.575 OF 2021
Date: 2026.02.03
18:04:39 +0530
IN
FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.2977 OF 2021
WITH
FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.2977 OF 2021
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.576 OF 2021
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. ....Applicant/Appellant
(Orig. Insurer)
V/s.
Sharda Santosh Chavhan & Ors. ....Respondents
----
Mr. Devendranath S. Joshi (through VC) for the applicant/appellant.
None for the respondents.
----
CORAM : JITENDRA JAIN, J.
DATED : 3 February 2026
P.C. :
1. This application is filed by the applicant/appellant-Corporate Private
Insurance Company seeking condonation of delay of 680 days in filing the
first appeal.
2. Mr. Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant states that the reason for
the delay is explained in paragraph 4 of the application, which reads as
under :-
"4. It is submitted that the Appellant is the corporate body and
the Thane Divisional Office was looking after the Claim Petition in
ppn 2 33.ia-575.21.doc
Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation Thane. It is submitted
that the impugned Judgment and Order was passed by the Tribunal
on 18/01/2019; the application for certified copy was made on
19/01/2019; was ready on 25/01/2019 and was received by the
trial court dealing advocate of the appellant on 01/03/2019. The
trial court dealing Advocate provided the Certified Copy of the
Judgment and Award to the Appellant vide letter dated / /2019
received on / /2019. Since the Appellant is a corporate body, the
files are rooted from one table to another and thereafter, the
recommendation was made to file an appeal. The file was
thereafter sent to Head Office of the Appellant on / /2019 which
has direct control over the Thane Division Office and was the
decision making authority for filing appeal. Thereafter, the file was
processed at Head Office and the decision was taken to file appeal
on / /2019 before the Honourable High Court and the file was
returned to Thane Office which was received on / /2019. The
matter was, thereafter, allotted to the Advocate for the Appellant
appearing in the Honourable High Court vide letter dated
24/10/2019 received by advocate on 26/10/2019. It is further
submitted that the Advocate for the Appellant raised bills regarding
Court Fees, Professional Fees and mandatory deposit on
01/12/2019 and also sought for various explanations. The draft
Appeal memo was sent to the Appellant for approval on
25/12/2019. After receiving approval to the draft of Appeal as well
as Interim Applications therein on /11/2019, the Court Fee was
paid and the Appeal is filed. In the meantime, entire decretal
amount was deposited before the Commissioner on /12/2020
being pre-requisite for filing Appeal under Section 30 of the
Workmen's Compensation Act 1923. It is submitted that there is
delay of few days in filing the appeal which is
unintentional, reasonable, not deliberate and sufficiently explained.
The same may kindly be condoned in the interest of justice since
the applicant has a good case to succeed on merits. The Applicant
ppn 3 33.ia-575.21.doc
has goof case to succeed on merits and if the delay is not
condoned, the Appellant will suffer irreparable loss.
3. Mr. Joshi submits that the applicant can be put to some terms and the
delay be condoned and the appeal be heard on merits. He, therefore,
prayed that the delay application be allowed. Mr. Joshi also contends that if
there is merit in the case, then the Court should lean in favor of condoning
the delay. Mr. Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant relies on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Inder Singh Vs. The
State of Madhya Pradesh1.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant.
5. The applicant is a Corporate Private Insurance Company. The reasons
given in paragraph 4 are the reasons generally given by the government
and public sector companies. The reason being moving of files from one
table to another before the final decision to file an appeal is taken. The
administrative reasons have been cited by which the files have to move
through various levels.
6. At the outset, in paragraph 4 of the interim application, there are
various important dates of which only year is mentioned and the day and
month are kept blank. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, time and
again, has deprecated and declined to accept the reasons of the file moving
from one table to another in case of government and public sector
companies. If that be so, then certainly the reasoning of administrative
moving of the file in case of a private corporate insurance company cannot
be accepted. The delay is of 680 days and except making bald statements,
there is nothing attached to the interim application in support thereof.
1 Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.6145 of 2024 decided on 21 March 2025
ppn 4 33.ia-575.21.doc
7. There is no mention as to whether this administrative moving of the
file has affected only this matter or other matters also. It is for the
applicant/appellant to manage its affairs to comply with the timelines
provided by the Act. The administrative moving of the file cannot by any
stretch of imagination be considered as "sufficient cause" for condoning the
delay.
8. The appeal is filed under Section 30 of the Employees Compensation
Act, 1923 which provides for 60 days within which the appeal should be
filed. In my view, when the legislature has made a provision of 60 days, it
has considered all the administrative reasons by which the appeal has to be
filed. If the cause which is shown is accepted, then the relevance of the time
provided under the Act is lost, moreso in the present case, where the
reasons are nothing but "excuses" and the same cannot be accepted.
9. The learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the decision of
the Supreme Court in the case of Inder Singh (supra). In my view, each
cause has to be seen on its own merits.
10. In any case, the issue as to what constitutes "sufficient cause" has
been very exhaustively adjudicated and decided by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Shivamma (Dead) By LRs. Vs. Karnataka Housing
Board & Ors.2. The facts of the present case when applied to the ratio of the
decision in the case of Shivamma (supra) would result into the dismissal of
the present application by not accepting the cause shown in the application
as "sufficient cause".
11. I have perused the impugned order and the issue raised therein are
questions of facts and not substantial questions of law. If the Trial Court has
taken plausible view unless it is shown very perverse, no interference is
2 2025 SCC online SC 1969
ppn 5 33.ia-575.21.doc
called for. If according to the applicant, they had good case on merits, then
no justification for long delay of 680 days on ground of administrative
reasons.
12. Interim Application No.575 of 2021 is dismissed.
13. Consequently, First Appeal (St.) No.2977 of 2021 and Interim
Application No.576 of 2021 seeking stay of the impugned order also do not
survive and are disposed of.
(JITENDRA JAIN, J.)
