Gujarat High Court
Tata Aig General Insurance Co Ltd vs Shobhanaben Suhasbhai Vadilal Shah on 14 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4098/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 4098 of
2025
In F/FIRST APPEAL NO. 16861 of 2025
==========================================================
TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD
Versus
SHOBHANABEN SUHASBHAI VADILAL SHAH & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS KIRTI S PATHAK(9966) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 6
IG JOSHI(8726) for the Respondent(s) No. 5
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4,7
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 14/10/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned counsels for the parties.
2. The present application has been preferred for seeking
condonation of delay of 561 days caused in preferring the appeal
against the impugned judgment and award dated 26.07.2023 passed
by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.) and 3 rd
Additional District Court, Panchmahals at Halol, in M.A.C.P. No. 116
of 2019.
3. Ms. Kirti S. Pathak, learned advocate for the applicant-
Insurance Company submitted that the delay of 561 days has
occasioned in preferring the appeal owing to the administrative
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4098/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
reasons. She further submitted that sufficient time was consumed in
obtaining the statutory receipt with Nazir Stamp, hence, the appeal
could not be filed within the period of limitation. She further
submitted that the delay is neither intentional nor malafide, but has
occasioned owing to the reasons mentioned in detail at para no. 2 of
the instant application. In support of her contentions, the applicant
placed reliance on to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag &
Anr. v. MST. Katiji & Ors. reported in [AIR 1987 SC 1353].
4. On the other hand, Ms. Himani Shah, learned AGP vehemently
submitted that there is no ground to condone the delay, hence, the
application deserves to be dismissed.
5. Having considered the submissions of the learned advocates
for the parties and having regard to the ground pressed into service,
in my considered opinion, constitutes a sufficient ground for
condoning the delay. At this juncture, it would be profitable to refer
to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of
Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. MST. Katiji &
Ors. reported in [AIR 1987 SC 1353], wherein, the Hon'ble Apex
Court has observed as under:-
1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by
lodging an appeal late.
2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious
matter being thrown out at the very threshold and
cause of justice being defeated. As against this when
delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a
cause would be decided on merits after hearing the
parties.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/4098/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2025
undefined
3. "Every day's delay must be explained" does not mean
that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not
every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine
must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic
manner.
4. When substantial justice and technical considerations
are pitted against each other, cause of substantial
justice deserves to be preferred for the other side
cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being
done because of a non-deliberate delay.
5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned
deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or
on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to
benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a
serious risk.
6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on
account of its power to legalize injustice on technical
grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice
and is expected to do so.
6. Thus, having considered the ground for delay pressed into
service for condoning the delay and as per the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition,
Anantnag & Anr. v. MST. Katiji & Ors. (supra), the present
application deserves to be allowed and accordingly, the delay in
preferring the appeal is hereby condoned.
7. In view of the above, the present application stands disposed of.
No order as to costs.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J)
GIRISH/ARUN
