Gauhati High Court
United India Insurance Company ... vs Smti. Minu Das And 4 Ors on 16 November, 2022
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010113382019
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/1758/2019 In
MAC App./3253/2019
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AND HEAD OFFICE AT 24, WHITES
ROAD, CHENNAI AND ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT G.S. ROAD, DISPUR,
GUWAHATI.
VERSUS
SMTI. MINU DAS AND 4 ORS.
W/O- SRI GOBINDA DAS, R/O- VILL.- BALIPARA, P.S. PALASHBARI, DIST.-
KAMRUP, ASSAM, PIN- 781128.
2:SRI GOBINDA DAS
S/O- LATE DHANESWAR DAS
R/O- VILL.- BALIPARA
P.S. PALASHBARI
DIST.- KAMRUP
ASSAM
PIN- 781128.
3:SRI TILOK DAS
S/O- SRI GOBINDA DAS
R/O- VILL.- BALIPARA
P.S. PALASHBARI
DIST.- KAMRUP
ASSAM
PIN- 781128.
4:SRI HARESWAR SWARGIARY
S/O- SRI PILING SWARGIARY
R/O- VILL.- PAMAHI
P.O. AND P.S. GORCHUK
Page No.# 2/5
DIST.- KAMRUP
ASSAM
PIN- 781035. (OWNER OF THE VEHICLE NO. AS-01-EC-2168 (DUMPER).
5:SRI JAYANTA DAS
S/O- SRI MANGALU DAS
R/O- VILL.- CHANDRA SIMILA
JARABARI
DIST.- KAMRUP
ASSAM
PIN- 781135. (DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE NO. AS-01-EC-2168 (DUMPER)
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R GOSWAMI
Advocate for the Respondent : MR H C DAS (R-5)
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
JUDGMENT
Date : 16-11-2022
Office Note dated 11.11.2022 reflects that fresh notice upon the respondent no.
4 by registered post with A/D was issued on 09.11.2022 and no fresh notice has been
issued upon the respondent no. 1. Further, the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 5 have
entered appearance through their learned counsel.
2. Ms. M Saikia, learned counsel for the applicant, however, submits that the
respondent no. 1 (claimant no. 1) was the mother of the deceased, who had passed
away even before the award could be passed and she has been made party only in
terms of the format. The learned counsel, accordingly submits that the name of the
respondent no. 1 may be struck off as there are two other claimants who are the
respondent nos. 2 and 3 represented by Shri D Mondal, learned counsel. Ms. Saikia,
learned counsel further submits that the respondent no. 4 is the owner to whom fresh
notice has been issued.
Page No.# 3/5
3. Since the ground of appeal is mainly on the quantum, the presence of the
owner i.e., the respondent no. 4 may not be necessary and accordingly, the name of
the respondent no. 4 is also struck off.
4. Shri AA Mondal, learned counsel has entered appearance for the respondent no.
5.
5. Heard the learned counsel on the application for condonation of delay.
6. Ms. Saikia, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the delay of 52
days in preferring the appeal is for reasons beyond the control of the applicant-
appellant. The learned counsel has submitted that the copy of the impugned judgment
and award dated 15.10.2018 was received by the Advocate only on 16.11.2018 and
thereafter by the Office on 29.11.2018. Scrutiny of the records and referring the
matter to the panel Advocate to prefer the appeal consumed sometime as a result
thereof, there is a delay of 52 days. Ms. Saikia, learned counsel has submitted that in
considering a delay condonation petition, a justice oriented and pragmatic approach
should be taken by the Court so that substantial justice can be given more weightage
than the technicalities.
7. Both the learned counsel for the opposite parties, namely, Shri D Mondal and
Shri AA Mondal do not seriously oppose the prayer for condonation of delay and
submit that they would rather contest on the merits of the case.
8. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the applicant while considering
a delay condonation application, unless the delay is found to be a result of gross
negligence, the approach of the Court should be a lenient one so that substantive
Page No.# 4/5
justice can be given due importance over technicalities. Though law of limitation is
equally important law by which the adverse party acquires a right on the expiry period
of limitation, the discretion given for condonation of delay needs to be exercised in a
judicious manner to protect the interest of justice.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Chandra
Mani, reported in (1996) 3 SCC 132 had laid down the law relating to condonation of
delay. The relevant extract is as follows:
"11. ... 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-à-vis
private litigant could be laid to prove strict standards of sufficient cause.
..."
10. Further, in the case of State of Nagaland v. Lipok Ao , reported in (2005) 3 SCC
752, the Hon'ble Supreme Court as held as follow:
"7. .... A pragmatic approach has to be adopted and when substantial
justice and technical approach are pitted against each other the former
has to be preferred."
Page No.# 5/5
11. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the delay of 52 days in
preferring the accompanying appeal is liable to be condoned.
12. Accordingly, the interlocutory application for condonation of delay stands
allowed.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
