Gauhati High Court
United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs On The Death Of Khalilur Rahman His ... on 3 March, 2021
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010116852016
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/1100/2016
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 24 WHITES ROAD, CHENNAI 800014
AND REGIONAL OFFICE AT GUWAHATI-5, REPRESENTED BY THE
REGIONAL MANAGER
VERSUS
ON THE DEATH OF KHALILUR RAHMAN HIS LEGAL HEIR, MAMTAZ
BEGUM AND 2 ORS
W/O KHALILUR RAHMAN, R/O VILL. NAGAJAN, P.O. KHARUPETIA, P.S.
KHARUPETIA, DIST. DARRANG, MANGALDOI, PIN 784115 (ASSAM)
2:MR. MRINAL KUMAR
S/O LATE LT. MANONIL KUMAR
VILL. KHENENIPARA
P.S. BAIHATA CHARIALI
DIST. KAMRUP
ASSAM
PIN
3:MD. BABUL ALI
S/O LT. ADAM ALI
R/O VILL. BAGGARAH
NO. 1
KHANAPARA
P.S. SIPAJHAR
DIST. DARRANG
ASSAM
PIN
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. C SHARMA
Page No.# 2/4
Advocate for the Respondent : MR. A C MAHANTA (R2,R3)
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA
ORDER
Date : 03-03-2021
Heard the learned counsel Ms. M. Choudhury appearing for the applicant. Also heard
Mr. B.K. Das, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
The present application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963
praying for condonation of 225 days of delay in preferring the MAC Appeal.
The learned counsel Ms. Choudhury has cited various official matters which led to the
delay. In order to buttress her point, Ms. Choudhury has relied upon a decision of the
Supreme Court that was rendered in State of Nagaland v. Lipok AO and Others , reported in
(2005) 3 SCC 752. In para 15 of this judgment the Supreme Court has held as under:
15. It is axiomatic that decisions are taken by officers/agencies proverbially at slow pace
and encumbered process of pushing the files from table to table and keeping it on table for
considerable time causing delay - intentional or otherwise - is a routine. Considerable delay of
procedural red-tape in the process of their making decision is a common feature. Therefore,
certain amount of latitude is not impermissible. If the appeals brought by the State are lost
for such default no person is individually affected but what in the ultimate analysis suffers, is
public interest. The expression "sufficient cause" should, therefore, be considered with
pragmatism in justice-oriented approach rather than the technical detection of sufficient
cause for explaining every day's delay. The factors which are peculiar to and characteristic of
the functioning of the governmental conditions would be cognizant to and requires adoption
of pragmatic approach in justice- oriented process. The court should decide the matters on
merits unless the case is hopelessly without merit. No separate standards to determine the
cause laid by the State vis-a-vis private litigant could be laid to prove strict standards of
sufficient cause. The Government at appropriate level should constitute legal cells to examine
Page No.# 3/4
the cases whether any legal principles are involved for decision by the courts or whether
cases require adjustment and should authorise the officers to take a decision or give
appropriate permission for settlement. In the event of decision to file appeal needed prompt
action should be pursued by the officer responsible to file the appeal and he should be made
personally responsible for lapses, if any. Equally, the State cannot be put on the same footing
as an individual. The individual would always be quick in taking the decision whether he
would pursue the remedy by way of an appeal or application since he is a person legally
injured while State is an impersonal machinery working through its officers or servants.
Per contra, Mr. Das has submitted that the insurance company was negligent and for
that reason the delay occurred.
In Improvement Trust, Ludhiana vs Ujagar Singh &Ors reported in 2010 (6) SCC 786,
the Hon,ble Supreme Court has held --
It is pertinent to point out that unless malafides are writ large on the conduct of the
party, generally as a normal rule, delay should be condoned. In the legal arena, an attempt
should always be made to allow the matter to be contested on merits rather than to throw it
on such technalities.
In State (NCT Of Delhi) vs Ahmed Jaan reported in 2008 (14) SCC 562, the Hon,ble
Supreme Court has held -
The expression "sufficient cause" should, therefore, be considered with pragmatism in
justice-oriented approach rather than the technical detection of sufficient cause for explaining
every day's delay.
The true guide for a court to exercise the discretion under Section 5 is whether the
appellant acted with reasonable diligence in prosecuting the appeal.A litigant does not stand
to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk. Judiciary is not respected on
account of its power to legalise injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of.
Reverting to the case in hand this Court is of the opinion that a public sector company
should not be equated with a private individual, so far as the delay in filing of the appeal is
concerned. This Court hereby holds that the applicant insurance company has shown
sufficient reasons for the delay and therefore the delay stands condoned.
Page No.# 4/4
The Interlocutory application is disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
