Gauhati High Court
The Sri Ram General Insurance Co. ... vs Smti Jamkunglai Nampui on 6 January, 2021
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010001422018
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/6/2018
THE SRI RAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SITAPURA, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN 302022 AND
HAVING A BRANCH OFFICE AT B.R. ARCADE, 3RD FLOOR, 21 JANAPATH,
ULUBARI, GUWAHATI
VERSUS
SMTI JAMKUNGLAI NAMPUI
R/O VILL. NE SANGBAR, P.O. UMRANGSHO,
2:NAGMTHACHHUNA NAMPUI
R/O VILL. NE SANGBAR
P.O. UMRANGSHO
3:NAGIZUALA NAMPUI
R/O VILL. NE SANGBAR
P.O. UMRANGSHO
4:LALTANPUII NAMPUI
R/O VILL. NE SANGBAR
P.O. UMRANGSHO
5:LALTHANPARA NAMPUI
R/O VILL. NE SANGBAR
P.O. UMRANGSHO
6:RAMMAFONA NAMPUI
R/O VILL. NE SANGBAR
P.O. UMRANGSHO
7:LALRAMKIMI NAMPUI
R/O VILL. NE SANGBAR
P.O. UMRANGSHO
8:WILSONMONIA NAMPUI
Page No.# 2/4
R/O VILL. NE SANGBAR
P.O. UMRANGSHO
9:JUBILEE NAMPUI
R/O VILL. NE SANGBAR
P.O. UMRANGSHO
10:JOSESPH LALNUNFELA NAMPUI
R/O VILL. NE SANGBAR
P.O. UMRANGSHO
11:ANOWAR HUSSAIN LASKAR
R/O KAZIDOHAR -I
P.S. SONAI (OWNER OF THE VEHICLE NO. AS-01-AC/8166 (TATA SUMO))
12:ANOWAR HUSSAIN CHOUDHURY
R/O KAJIDOHAR-I
P.S. SONAI (OWNER OF THE VEHICLE NO. AS-11-AC/502 (AUTO
RICKSHAW))
13:PARUL ISLAM LASKAR
R/O KAJIDOHAR PART-I
P.S. SONAI (DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE NO. AS-01-AC/8166 (TATA SUMO))
14:THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.
REPRESENTED BY THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. CAPITAL TRAVELS BUILDING
CLUB ROAD (INSURER OF THE VEHICLE NO. AS-11-AC/5023 (AUTO
RICKSHAW)
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R GOSWAMI
Advocate for the Respondent :
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA
ORDER
Date : 06.01.2021
Heard Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel for the applicant. None appears on call for
the opposite party although the name of learned counsel is reflected in the cause list.
2. By this application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, the applicant has prayed
for condoning the delay of 345 days beyond the period of limitation in filing the connected
appeal.
Page No.# 3/4
3. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the connected appeal has
merit because of the fact that the learned Tribunal had granted an award of Rs.1.00 lakh to
the respondent/ claimant under the head of loss of consortium to widow, a sum of Rs.1.00
lakh on account of loss of estate to widow and further sum of Rs.1.00 lakh on account of
loss of love & affection to all. It is submitted that the award under the aforesaid heads is
contrary to the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of Supreme Court of India in the case
of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Pranay Sethi & Ors . reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. Hence it
is submitted that an appeal which otherwise has good merit ought not to be thrown out on
account of the appeal being barred by limitation.
4. On perusal of the statements made in this application, the following explanation for
the cause of delay has been pleaded:-
"That the judgment and Award was passed on 16.09.2016 the last date for fling the
appeal was 23.12.2016. But since appeal has been filed on 04.12.2017, there has been
a delay of 345 (three hundred forty five) days in filing this appeal. It is stated that as
the Appellant does not have an office at Silchar, the dealing Advocate sent the same to
Guwahati Office of the Appellant after obtaining the certified copy on 28.10.2016
which was received by the Guwahati Office on 04.11.2016. But since at that point of
time there was a reshuffling of the personnel of the legal department owing to transfer
of the previous legal manager the aforesaid Judgment and Award remained unnoticed
under a heap of unrelated papers till 29.09.2017 when the dealing Advocate called up
from Silchar the Appellants office at Guwahati to inquire about the Judgment and
Award because he was in turn reminded by the claimant. It was only then the
Appellant Company discovered the Judgment and Award under a heap of unrelated
papers on 03.10.2017. The Guwahati Office then handed over the brief to the Counsel
of the Appellant on 18.10.2017 along with the cheque dated 11.10.2017 toward
statutory deposit for filing an appeal. But by the time the counsel of the Appellant
could prepare the memorandum of appeal a delay of 345 (three hundred and forty
five) days have occurred."
5. From the above, it is seen that there is no dispute that as per the aforesaid
statements, the dealing counsel had obtained the certified copy of the award dated
16.09.2016 on 28.10.2016, which was received by the applicant on 04.11.2016. It is a normal
Page No.# 4/4
standard practice that the learned Tribunal dispatches a copy of the order to the insurer and
in this application, there is no statement that the copy of the award so transmitted by the
Tribunal was never received by the applicant. Moreover, having received the certified copy of
the award well within the period of limitation, in the opinion of the Court, it was a fatal on
part of the applicant to keep the certified copy of the judgment and award in heap of
unrelated papers till 29.09.2017 which was done at their own risk. The Court is unable to
accept that merely because there was a reshuffling of the personnel of the legal department,
it would be open to the applicant to allow certified copy of the award to be dumped in
unrelated papers from 04.11.2016 to 29.09.2017. The applicant has also not made any
statement as to the name and official position of the personnel transferred, the date of
transfer, or if the personnel was transferred without any one being appointed as In-charge.
Moreover, if the applicant is aware that the award is excessive, the applicant and its officers
required to be more vigilant to protect their own interest.
6. In the present case in hand, as the applicant has not found to be vigilant despite
receiving certified copy on 04.11.2016 of the award passed on 16.09.2016, the applicant is
deemed to have consciously permitted the award to attain finality by allowing the limitation
period to expire.
7. In view of the gross negligence on part of the applicant in taking timely steps in
filing the appeal, the applicant has not been able to satisfy the Court regarding good and
tenable grounds constituting sufficient reasons to justify the delay.
8. Accordingly, this application is found to be without any merit and the same is
dismissed without condoning the delay.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
