The United India Insurance Co Ltd vs Prasannkuvarba Jasvantsinh ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 741 Guj

       C/CA/1971/2022                                 ORDER DATED: 30/01/2023




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                        R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1971 of 2022

                        In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 21958 of 2021

==========================================================
               THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD
                             Versus
         PRASANNKUVARBA JASVANTSINH ALIAS JASUBHA ZALA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RATHIN P RAVAL(5013) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 5,6
ROHANKUMAR H RAVAL(8337) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
==========================================================

     CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL

                                  Date : 30/01/2023
                                   ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Rathin P. Raval for the applicant and learned Advocate Mr. N.Y. Shukla for learned Advocate Mr. Rohankumar H. Raval for the respondents No. 1 to 4.

2. By way of this application, the applicant prays for condoning the delay of 129 days which has occurred in filing the First Appeal against the judgment and award passed by the learned Commissioner and Workman Compensation Court, Surendranagar, in WC (Fatal) Case No. 5 of 2013, dated 31.08.2019.

3. Learned Advocate Mr. Raval on behalf of the applicant would submit that while the impugned decision of the learned Workman Compensation Court was of 31.08.2019, a copy of the same had been applied on 06.09.2019 and the same had been received on 16.09.2021 and whereas thereafter since the applicant-company had deemed it appropriate to seek

C/CA/1971/2022 ORDER DATED: 30/01/2023

legal opinion as regards filing of the first appeal, the delay had occurred. Learned Advocate Mr. Raval would submit that considering the very short delay which has occurred, this Court may take a lenient view and condone the delay.

4. This application is vehemently objected to by learned Advocate Mr. Shukla for the respondents-claimants, who would submit that as such a perusal of the impugned decision reveals that though the applicant herein - defendant No.3 had been served copy of notice, yet they had chosen not to remain present. Learned Advocate would further submit that as such the delay is not of 129 days as claimed by the applicant, rather the delay is 254 days and whereas learned Advocate would submit that since the delay has exceeded number of days as claimed by the applicant-appellant and since there is no sufficient cause made out for condoning the delay, this Court may not entertain this application.

5. At the outset it requires to be noted that the applicant has explained sufficient cause for condoning the delay which has occurred in preferring the first appeal, more particularly taking the delay as 129 days. On the other hand, it is the case of the respondents-claimants that delay is not of 129 days, but is of 254 days. In the considered opinion of this Court, either way, since a plausible explanation has been stated in the memo of the application and whereas since in the considered opinion of this Court, sufficient cause is made out, therefore the delay requires to be condoned. Hence, the delay of 129 days in preferring the first appeal is condoned.

6. The above observation notwithstanding the fact that according to this Court, while the Registry has calculated the delay as 129 days, the respondents-claimants has calculated the delay as 254 days. This Court at this stage would not go into dispute as to what would be the actual days of

C/CA/1971/2022 ORDER DATED: 30/01/2023

delay, more particularly in view of the observation of sufficient cause being made hereinabove. Furthermore, insofar as the applicant - appellant not having participated in the substantive proceedings before the Commissioner, Workman Compensation Court, in the considered opinion of this Court, at this stage, the same may not have any bearing, more particularly in the considered opinion of this Court, while hearing the appeal, this Court will take the said fact into consideration as well as any other attendant facts i.e. whether non-appearance has prejudiced the respondents-claimants or not etc.

7. With this observations and direction, the present application stands disposed of as allowed.

8. Registry to list the main first appeal on 06.02.2023.

(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J) BDSONGARA