The National Insurance Company ... vs Savitaben Alias Samuben ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 1672 Guj

          C/CA/4379/2019                                    ORDER




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                  R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4379 of 2019

                    In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 27206 of 2019

==========================================================
            THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
                             Versus
           SAVITABEN ALIAS SAMUBEN ARJANBHAI CHAVDA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MAULIK J SHELAT(2500) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED(64) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
RULE UNSERVED(68) for the Respondent(s) No. 9
==========================================================

 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
        and
        HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA

                             Date : 04/02/2021

                        ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA)

Heard learned advocate Mr. Maulik Shelat for the applicant insurance company.

1.1 Learned advocate at the outset seeks to delete respondent No.9 who is owner stating that since the insurance insurance company is not disputing his liability, this application for condonation of delay may be considered even in absence of the said party.

1.2 Permission to delete respondent No.9 is granted and respondent No.9 stands deleted from the array of the respondents.

1.3 The rest of the respondents are served with the Rule, however,

C/CA/4379/2019 ORDER

none has chosen to appear.

2. The applicant insurance company seeks to condone the delay of 35 days occurred in preferring the First Appeal against the judgment and award dated 12.4.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Surendranagar, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 243 of 2005.

3. It is stated that certified copy was immediately applied on 20.4.2019. Thereafter, as per the practice of the company, judgment and the documents were sent for legal opinion which was received on 22.7.2019. It was decided to file appeal and the papers were hand over to the penal advocate.

4. The passage of time leading to aforesaid is purely procedural. The insurance company is impersonal body therefore it is normal that decisional process therein consumes some time. Viewed in the above context and looking to the extent of delay, sufficient cause is made out. Delay deserves to be condoned.

5. Accordingly, delay is condoned. The application is allowed. Rule is made absolute.

(N.V.ANJARIA, J)

(A. S. SUPEHIA, J) C.M. JOSHI