The New India Assurance Company ... vs Rajeshbhai Nathubhai Patel
2021 Latest Caselaw 12586 Guj

      C/CA/1167/2021                                        ORDER DATED: 26/08/2021




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                       R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1167 of 2021

                       In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 12653 of 2021

==========================================================
                 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD
                                 Versus
                      RAJESHBHAI NATHUBHAI PATEL
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS DIMPLE A THAKER(6838) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR.HIREN M MODI(3732) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
RULE SERVED(64) for the Respondent(s) No. 3,4,5
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA

                              Date : 26/08/2021

                                   ORAL ORDER

Heard learned advocate Ms.Dimple Thaker for the applicant and learned advocate Mr.Hiren Modi for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Though served with the Rule, none appears for respondent Nos.3 to 5.

2. Delay of 189 days has taken place in preferring the First Appeal against judgment and award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by the applicant insurance company.

3. The judgment and award was delivered on 10th June, 2019 in Motor Accident Claims Petition No.815 of 2017 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Kheda at Nadiad.

3.1 It is stated that thereafter the applicant company filed review application before the Tribunal on 09th July, 2019, which was dismissed in February, 2021. Advocate for the applicant insurance company

C/CA/1167/2021 ORDER DATED: 26/08/2021

gave opinion to prefer appeal. Thereafter process of filing appeal was commenced. In the meantime, limitation expired.

4. The submission could be countenanced that there was no intention on part of the applicant insurance company to abandon the proceedings and not to pursue the challenge to the judgment and award. Initially review application was filed, thereafter appeal was contemplated. This process can be said to be one which the applicant company as a litigant has entitled to pursue legitimately. Element of negligence is missing so as to refuse condonation of delay of 189 days.

4.1 Any litigant should be allowed to contest his case on merits, rather than being thrown out on technical ground such as delay.

5. The reason supplied make out sufficient cause to condone the delay of 189 days. Delay is condoned. Application is allowed. Rule is made absolute.

(N.V.ANJARIA, J) ANUP