Gauhati High Court
New India Assurance Company Ltd vs Sri Ananta Kataki And 2 Ors on 10 May, 2023
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010006482019
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/119/2019
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NEW INDIA ASSURANCE BUILDING
87 MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD, MUMBAI AND ONE OF THE NORTH EAST
REGIONAL OFFICE AT G.S. ROAD, ABC, GUWAHATI.
VERSUS
SRI ANANTA KATAKI AND 2 ORS
S/O LATE GOLAP KATAKI, R/O VILL. NAGAYA GHAHIGAON, P.S. SOOTEA,
DIST. SONITPUR, ASSAM, PIN 784175
2:BADAL CH. DEY
S/O JIBAN CH. DEY
S/O SALEK RAM SINGH
C/O SANJIB SINGH
R/O VILL. PAKHIYABARI
BINDUKUCHIR
TEZPUR
DIST. SONITPUR
ASSAM
PIN 784001
3:PARESH NATH KANU
S/O P KANU
R/O VILL. GAROWAN PATTY
TEZPUR
DIST. SONIPUR
ASSAM
PIN 78400
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K K BHATRA
Page No.# 2/5
Advocate for the Respondent : MR. S P CHOUDHURY (R1)
Linked Case :
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD
VERSUS
SRI ANANTA KATAKI AND 2 ORS
------------
Advocate for :
Advocate for : appearing for SRI ANANTA KATAKI AND 2 ORS
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
ORDER
10.05.2023.
1. Heard Ms. P. Huzuri, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. K.
Biswakarma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1.
2. This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for
condonation of delay of 328 days in preferring the connected appeal
against the Judgment and Award dated 23.06.2017 passed by the learned
Member, MACT, Biswanath Chariali, Sonitpur in MAC Case No. 137/2012.
The cause of delay is explained at paragraphs- 5, 6, 7 and 8 of this
application.
Page No.# 3/5
3. The explanation given discloses that the delay was caused due to the
movement of files and the time taken in getting opinion from their
counsels.
4. It is the case of the applicant that the Insurance policy itself was fake
and the dealing advocate had not given any opinion on the fake policy and
in fact, had advised to satisfy the award to be reasonable and just.
5. It is also the case of the applicant that after due deliberation, a decision
was taken to have a second opinion to send the matter to the Legal HUB at
North East Regional Office at Guwahati. On receipt of the file, the Legal
HUB, immediately sought an opinion from the legal retainer who in turn
advised the company to prefer an appeal without delay. Such opinion was
given on 07.08.2018 and immediately on 10.08.2018, the lawyer was
engaged to file the appeal. Thereafter, he took time till 13 th August, 2018
to do the needful. In the meantime, there were holidays and accordingly
appeal was filed on 16.08.2018.
6. The learned counsel for the claimant/respondent while opposing the
application submits that the explanation given cannot be said to be
sufficient inasmuch as the explanation itself shows that the applicants were
negligent. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relies on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of West Bengal
-Vs- Administrator, Howrah reported in AIR 1972 SC 749.
7. The learned counsel for the claimant/respondent further contends that
the procedural red tapism has been discarded while condoning the delay by
the Hon'ble Apex Court time and again and in the present case also delay
Page No.# 4/5
has been caused due to procedural red tapism on the part of the applicant
Insurance Company. In support of such contention, he relies the judgment
of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Office of the Chief Post Master
General and Ors -Vs- Living Media India Ltd. and Anr reported in
2012 3 SCC 563.
8. This Court has given anxious consideration to the submissions advanced
by the learned counsel for the parties. Also perused the materials available
on record.
9. In State of West Bengal -Vs- Administrator, Howrah (supra)
relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent, the Hon'ble Apex Court
in no unambiguous term laid down a ratio that sufficient cause should
receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice when no
negligence or inaction or want of bonafide is imputable to a party. In the
case in hand, as discussed hereinabove, the delay basically was caused due
to the divergent opinion regarding the filing of the appeal. One set of
lawyer advised to satisfy the decree inasmuch as the allegation is that the
policy was itself fake and on the basis of factual background the higher
legal authority has opined that an appeal should be preferred. Therefore,
delay on such count, in the given facts of the present case, in the
considered opinion of this Court, cannot be treated as negligence on the
part of the applicant Insurance Company.
10. Coming to the ratio laid down in the Office of the Chief Post Master
General and Ors (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has deprecated the
practice of the instrumentalities of the State in moving the files from table
to table and the red tapism and opined that delay should not be condoned
Page No.# 5/5
in aforesaid background. However, as held herein above in the present
case, it is not a case of red tapism rather it is a case of taking a decision
regarding preferring appeal or not, in the given background and allegation
that Insurance Policy itself was fake. Therefore, Office of the Chief Post
Master General and Ors (supra) is not applicable in the given facts of the
present case.
11. Considering the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents as
well as the pleadings made in the paragraphs- 5, 6, 7 and 8 of this
application, this Court is of the opinion that the present applicant was
prevented by sufficient cause in preferring the connected appeal within
time.
12. Accordingly, the delay is condoned.
13. IA stands disposed of.
14. Registry to register the connected appeal, if same is not defective and list
for Admission showing the name of Mr. K. Biswakarma, learned counsel for
the respondent No. 1 in the cause list. In the meantime a copy of the
appeal memo be served to Mr. Biswakarma, learned counsel.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
