Delhi High Court
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Aman Taneja & Ors. on 15 July, 2015
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Mac. Appeal No.788/2013 & C.M. Nos.13012/2013, 13013/2013
Decided on : 15th July, 2015
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ...... Appellant
Through: Mr. Pradeep Gaur, Advocate.
Versus
AMAN TANEJA & ORS. ...... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjijv Gupta & Mr. Vittan Khan,
Advocates for R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
V.K. SHALI, J. (ORAL)
1. This is an appeal filed by the insurance company against the award
dated 29.8.2012 passed by the learned MACT. Along with the appeal
there is an application bearing C.M. No.13012/2013 seeking condonation
of 270 days delay in filing the appeal.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant on the delay
application and have also gone through the record. The reasons for 270
days delay given in the application are that although the award was
passed on 29.8.2012; however, prior to that, the award was reserved and
as and when the counsel for the appellant went to check from the court
staff as to whether the award has been pronounced or not, it was informed
that the order is still reserved. It is further stated that for the first time,
the appellant came to know about passing of the award only at the time
when the execution was filed and accordingly, they informed the counsel
to apply for certified copy on 28.5.2013 which was received by them on
7.6.2013 and thereafter forwarded to the appellant company on
13.6.2013. After obtaining the certified copy, legal opinion on the award
was obtained and the appeal was filed.
3. Along with the application, affidavit of Ragini Mehrotra, Manager,
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. has been filed in support of the
averments made in the application; however, neither the name of the
counsel, who was representing the appellant before the MACT nor his
affidavit has been filed. In the absence of this, the story which has been
setup by the appellant does not inspire confidence. Even if it is assumed
that the order was reserved, the counsel or the client is expected to keep a
watch because as and when the orders will be pronounced, their title will
be reflected in the daily cause list. It seems that after the order was
reserved, both the counsel as well as the appellant company went into
slumber and did not make any serious and genuine effort to check up the
award having been passed or alternatively they were aware of the award
but the counsel and the appellant company was so slack that they did not
consider it necessary to apply for grant of certified copy immediately and
take appropriate corrective steps to assail the same. The reasoning given
by the appellant is not convincing and does not inspire confidence. On
the one hand, they say that they were informed for the first time about
passing of the award when the execution was sought. If that was so, then
execution petition obviously was filed much before 13.6.2013 while as in
the same paragraph, the appellant is saying that they learnt about the
factum of award having been passed when they received intimation from
the counsel on 13.6.2013. This is apparent from the reading of the
averments in para 3 of the application where the appellant states that they
applied for certified copy on 28.5.2013, received it on 7.6.2013 and the
same was forwarded to the appellant company on 13.6.2013. Therefore,
this part of the averment is directly inconsistent with the factum that they
learnt about passing of the award only on 13.6.2013. Even after receiving
the order on 7.6.2013, the appellant company has not acted with due
dispatch, as they ought to have, because it had taken them almost 70 days
even after obtaining the copy to prefer the appeal because the appeal has
been filed on 23.8.2013. No doubt the appellant is an institution having a
regular department full of law officers who do 'parvi' of their cases but it
seems that despite this fact, the appellants were not serious in assailing
the award.
4. The Supreme Court in number of cases has repeatedly impressed
that what is important while condoning the delay is not the length of
delay but bona fides of the party. In the instant case, although the delay
is of only 270 days which stands unexplained but even if one takes a
lenient view on account of the same, still the whole sequence of event
which is setup by the appellant does not inspire confidence and
consequently, it can by no stretch of imagination be said that the
appellants were bona fide in prosecuting the appeal or the trial court
matter for the purpose of filing the appeal.
5. I, therefore, do not find that it is a fit case where delay of 270 days
should be condoned. Accordingly, the application for condonation of
delay is dismissed. As the application seeking condonation of delay itself
is dismissed, the appeal has become time barred.
V.K. SHALI, J.
JULY 15, 2015
'AA'
