Gauhati High Court
United India Insurance Co.Ltd vs Kamalesh Ganguly And 2 Ors on 30 May, 2022
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010206192016
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/1004/2016
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT HEAD OFFICE AT 24 WHITES ROAD,
CHENNAI AND ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT G.S. ROAD, DISPUR, GUWAHATI
AND REPRESENTED BY CHIEF REGIONAL MANAGER, GUWAHATI
REGIONAL OFFICE, G.S. ROAD, DISPUR, GUWAHATI.
VERSUS
KAMALESH GANGULY and 2 ORS,
W/O LATE N.D. GANGULY, R/O NO. 1 MAITRA COLONY POLOFIELD ROAD,
TEZPUR, P.O. and P.S. TEZPUR, DIST. SONITPUR, ASSAM.
2:MONISH SAINI @ BOBY
S/O BALDEV SAINI
R/O GOROIMARI TINIALI
P.O. GOROIMARI
P.S. TEZPUR
DIST. SONITPUR
ASSAM.
3:SHANTI RANJAN SARKAR
S/O SRI JAGDISH SARKAR
R/O L.D.S. ROAD
GAROWANPATTY
TEZPUR
P.O. and P.S. TEZPUR
DIST. SONITPUR
ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.M SAIKIA
Advocate for the Respondent : MR.S SAHUR-1
Page No.# 2/5
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NANI TAGIA
ORDER
Date : 30.05.2022
Heard Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel for the applicant/ Insurance Company.
Also heard Mr. S. Sahu, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1; and
Mr. F. A. Hasan, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2.
This is an application preferred by the applicant/Insurance Company under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, praying for condonation of delay of 248 days, in
preferring the connected appeal which is directed against the judgment & award,
dated 22.11.2013, passed by the learned Member, MACT, Sonitpur, in MAC Case No.
368/2001.
The reason for the delay in not preferring the connected MAC. appeal within the
stipulated time has been explained by the applicant in paragraph No. 2 of the
accompanying application, stating that the judgment & award, dated 22.11.2013,
passed by the learned Member, MACT, Sonitpur, in MAC Case No. 368/2001, was sent
by the Office of the MACT, Sonitpur, on 11.12.2013, to the Dealing Office of the
Company i.e. Tezpur Divisional Office-I. The Tezpur Divisional Office-I, after receipt of
the same, asked the dealing Advocate on 06.01.2014, to give his opinion on the
matter. The legal opinion, dated 28.01.2014, was received by the Tezpur Divisional
Office-I, on 28.02.2014. After the legal opinion was studied, it was sent to the
Regional Office at Guwahati on 21.03.2014. The Regional Office at Guwahati sought
another legal opinion from their panel Advocate on 11.04.2014. The panel Advocate
after studying the brief, sought for some clarification on 30.04.2014. The clarification
sought for by the panel Advocate was furnished to him on 21.06.2014. Thereafter, the
Page No.# 3/5
panel Advocate advised the Regional Office at Guwahati on 04.07.2014 to file an
appeal for which purpose, the certified copy of the judgment & award, dated
22.11.2013, was asked to be obtained. But the Advocate who was dealing with the
matter at Tezpur, was out-of-station for a pretty long time and the certified copy of the
judgment & award, in question, could not be obtained immediately and the same was
later on obtained on 23.09.2014. The Regional Office of the applicant/Insurance
Company at Guwahati after receipt of the certified copy of the judgment & award, on
06.10.2014, handed-over the brief to the counsel on 10.10.2014 for preferring an
appeal against the impugned judgment & award passed by the learned Tribunal. The
appeal was accordingly filed, however, after a delay of 248 days.
Under the aforesaid circumstances, Mr. Goswami, learned counsel for the
applicant/Insurance Company, prays for condoning the delay of 248 days in preferring
the connected appeal.
The respondent No. 1 has filed an objection stating that the explanation
provided by the applicant/Insurance Company, does not merit condonation of delay of
248 days for the reasons that the impugned judgment & award, dated 22.11.2013,
was passed by the learned Tribunal in the presence of the counsel representing the
parties including the counsel for the applicant/Insurance Company and therefore, the
communication made by the Office of the MACT, Tezpur, forwarding the judgment &
award, dated 22.11.2013, passed by the learned Tribunal on the subsequent date
could not come in the aid of the applicant/Insurance Company. That apart, though the
applicant/Insurance Company have made various correspondences between the
Tezpur Divisional Office-I, the Regional Office at Guwahati, and the Advocates
concerned, no supporting letters/ correspondences made between the Tezpur
Divisional Office-I, the Regional Office at Guwahati, as well as the Advocates
Page No.# 4/5
concerned, have been annexed in this application. Finally, it has been stated in the
objection filed by the respondent No. 1 that the Advocate at Tezpur Divisional Office-I,
had been stated to have remained out-of-station for a pretty long time; the same has
also not been substantiated by the applicant/Insurance Company as to for how long
and under what circumstances, the Advocate of the applicant/ Insurance Company
remained out-of-station from Tezpur making it reasonably unbelievable.
Under such circumstances, Mr. Sahu, learned counsel for respondent No. 1,
submits that the explanation provided by the applicant/Insurance Company, is neither,
substantiated by supporting evidence, nor, any sufficient cause has been explained
requiring condonation of delay of 248 days in preferring the connected appeal.
Mr. Hasan, learned counsel for respondent No. 2, while adopting the submission
of respondent No. 1; further submits that the 248 days delay in preferring the
connected appeal, is too long a period requiring the condonation by this Court in
exercise of power conferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Rival contentions and submissions advanced by the parties have received due
consideration of this Court.
The explanation provided by the applicant/Insurance Company in the
accompanying application, as highlighted hereinabove, though may not indicate
reasonably sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 248 days in preferring the
connected appeal if a strict and pedantic approach is taken on the matter, yet,
however, taking into account, the various decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Apex
Page No.# 5/5
Court that an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, should be dealt with by
adopting a liberal approach; I am inclined to condone the delay of 248 days in
preferring the connected appeal in the interest of justice.
In view of the above, the delay of 248 days in filing the connected appeal is
hereby condoned in the interest of justice.
The interlocutory application stands allowed and accordingly stands disposed of.
Registry shall register the connected appeal and list it for admission hearing in
due course.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
