The New India Assurance Company ... vs Kalusingh Dolasingh
2021 Latest Caselaw 1814 Guj

            C/CA/3490/2019                                   ORDER




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                    R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3490 of 2019

                      In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 26547 of 2019

==========================================================
       THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED SURAT
                           Versus
                    KALUSINGH DOLASINGH
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR MAULIK J SHELAT(2500) for the Respondent(s) No. 5
RULE SERVED(64) for the Respondent(s) No. 3,4,6,7,8,9
UNSERVED EXPIRED (R)(69) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================

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

                               Date : 08/02/2021

                        ORAL ORDER

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

Learned advocate Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati at the outset stated that though respondent No.2 is unserved expired, he being the owner of the vehicle insured by the applicant company and that the legal liability is not challenged by the insurance company, the said party may be deleted. As per the request of learned advocate for the applicant, respondent No.2 is deleted from the array of the respondents at the cost and consequence of the applicant.

2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Vibhuti nanavati for the applicant and learned advocate Mr. Maulik Shelat for the respondent No.5, whereas none appeared for respondent Nos. 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9 though served with the Rule.

C/CA/3490/2019 ORDER

3. It is to condone delay of 126 days that the present application is preferred.

4. The delay has taken place in filling the First Appeal against judgment and award dated 11.10.2018 delivered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.) Surat at Bardoli in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 1065 of 2015.

5. To explain the delay, it is averred in the application that after the judgment and award was pronounced, certified copy was applied on the said date, which was ready on 5.12.2018. The applicant insurance company thereafter has narrated the steps which were required to be undertaken in their administrative hierarchy before the appeal could be finally lodged.

6. Since the applicant insurance company is an impersonate body, consumption of time in undertaking procedure of seeking opinion and in exhausting the hierarchical steps, consumption of time was inherent. If the delay has taken place in such administrative decision making process to the extent of 126 days, it could be said that it was supported by sufficient cause.

7. In the circumstances, delay deserves to be condoned. Delay of 126 days is consonance. The application is allowed. Rule is made absolute.

(N.V.ANJARIA, J)

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