Himachal Pradesh High Court
Oriental Insurance Company vs Karam Chand And Ors on 4 June, 2025
Author: Vivek Singh Thakur
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
( 2025:HHC:18150 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
SHIMLA
CMP(M) No.1942 of 2024
Date of Decision: 04.06.2025
Oriental Insurance Company ...Appellant.
Versus
Karam Chand and Ors
..Respondents/Petitioners.
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes
For the Appellant: Mr. Deepak Bhasin, Sr. Advocate with Mr.
Sambhav Bhasi, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Ms. Shivani Tegta, Advocate, for
respondent No.1.
Mr. Rakesh Chaudhary, Advocate for
respondents No. 2 and 3.
Mr. Abhinav Mohan Goel, for respondent
No4.
Vivek Singh Thakur, J. (Oral)
This application has been filed for condonation of delay in
filing appeal against the award dated 27.05.2024 passed in MACP No.
43/K/II/2021/17 by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-III, Kangra at
Dharamshala, District Kangra.
2. The only ground taken to explain the delay is that
Insurance Company was proceeded against ex-parte before passing of
award by MACT and, therefore, the Company was not aware about
passing of the award by the MACT till First week of October, 2024.
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
( 2025:HHC:18150 )
3. It is further case of the Insurance Company that
immediately thereafter appeal was filed after seeking legal opinion and
it has been stated that there was bonafide and compelling reason, and
also due to location of the Insurance Company at the distant place,
due to which delay has occurred in filing the appeal.
4. Applicant/Appellant is an Insurance Company having
large number of Law Officers/ Legal Advisers and directory of
Advocates throughout the country to assist the Company. The
Insurance Company cannot equate itself with the person having no
knowledge of law. Once the service of the Insurance Company before
the MACT is not disputed, it was incumbent upon and legal and moral
duty of the Insurance Company to ensure representation of the
Insurance Company before the MACT. It is a serious lapse on the part of
the Insurance Company, particularly keeping in view the fact noted
above regarding the legal assistance available to the company.
5. It is also noticeable that Insurance Company including the
Insurance Company, are facing numerous cases throughout the
country and most of them are MACT Motor Accident Claims cases. In
such eventuality, the Insurance Company had opted not to contest the
MACT claim before the MACT even when it was the duty of the
Company to remain vigilant about the passing an award by the MACT.
6. Insurance Company has to show and establish sufficient cause
for not preferring the appeal within limitation period as required under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which reads as under:-
"5. Extension of prescribed period in certain cases.-Any
appeal or any application, other than an application
under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), may be admitted after
the prescribed period, if the appellant or the applicant
( 2025:HHC:18150 )
satisfied the court that he had sufficient cause for not
preferring the appeal or making the application within
such period".
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Postmaster General and Others
Vs. Living Media India Ltd. and another, reported in (2012) 3 SCC 563
has observed as under:-.
"28. Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter
of condonation of delay when there was no gross
negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides, a
liberal concession has to be adopted to advance
substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts
and circumstances, the Department cannot take
advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on
account of impersonal machinery and inherited
bureaucratic methodology of making several notes
cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies
being used and available. The law of limitation
undoubtedly binds everybody, including the Government.
29. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the
government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities
that unless they have reasonable and acceptable
explanation for the delay and there was bona fide effort,
there s no need to accept the usual explaination that the
file was kept pending for several months/years due to
considerable degree of procedural red tape in the
process. The government departments are under a
special obligation to ensure that they perform their
duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of
delay is an exception and should not be used as an
anticipated benefit for the government departments. The
law shelters everyone under the same light and should
not be swirled for the benefit of a few".
8. The Supreme Court in University of Delhi Vs. Union of India
and others, reported in (2020) 13 SCC 745 had observed that there
may be insufficiency of routine explanation and every day's delay need
not be explained but resonable and aceptable explanation is very
much necessary to indicate sufficient cause to justify the delay.
9. In the present case, Insurance Company has failed to render
reasonable and acceptable explanation to show sufficient cause which
prevented the Insurance Company from filing the appeal within
limitation period.
( 2025:HHC:18150 )
10. The Supreme Court in Principal Commissioner Central Excise,
Delhi-I Vs. Design Dialogues India Private Limited, reported in (2022) 2
SCC 327, had declined to condone the delay on the ground that similar
matters were pending before the Supreme Court with observation that
unless the case is brought within parameters of Postmaster General
and Others Vs. Living Media India Ltd. case, the Court would not be
inclined to condone the delay.
11. The Supreme Court in Commissioner of Customs, Chennai Vs.
Volex Interconnect (India) Private Limited, reported in (2022) 3 SCC
159, had declined to condone the delay for absence of any cogent
explanation for condonation of delay in terms of Postmaster General
and Others Vs. Living Media India Ltd.
12. The Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and others Vs.
Sabha Narain and others, reported in (2022) 9 SCC 266, had declined
the request to condone the unexplained delay for showing no sufficient
cause by referring Postmaster General and Others Vs. Living Media
India Ltd., with imposition of costs of Rs.25,000/- for wastage of judicial
time.
13. In the Sheo Raj Singh (deceased) through LRs and others vs.
Union of India and another reported in (2023)10 SCC 531, the Supreme
Court after taking into consideration various pronouncements has held
as under:-
"30. Considering the aforementioned decisions, there
cannot be any quarrel that this Court has stepped in to
ensure that substantive rights of private parties and the
State are not defeated at the threshold simply due to
technical considerations of delay. However, these
decisions notwithstanding, we reiterate that
condonation of delay being a discretionary power
available to courts, exercise of discretion must
necessarily depend upon the sufficiency of the cause
( 2025:HHC:18150 )
shown and the degree of acceptability of the
explanation, the length of delay being
immaterial.
31. Sometimes, due to want of sufficient cause being
shown or an acceptable explanation being proffered,
delay of the shortest range may not be condoned
whereas, in certain other cases, delay of long periods
can be condoned if the explanation is satisfactory and
acceptable. Of course, the courts must distinguish
between an 'explanation' and an 'excuse'. An
'explanation' is designed to give someone all of the
facts and lay out the cause for something. It helps clarify
the circumstances of a particular event and allows the
person to point out that something that has happened is
not his fault, if it is really not his fault. Care must
however be taken to distinguish an 'explanation' from
an 'excuse' Although people tend to see 'explanation'
and 'excuse' as the same thing and struggle to find out
the difference between the two, there is a distinction
which, though fine, is real.
32. An 'excuse' is often offered by a person to deny
responsibility and consequences when under attack. It is
sort of a defensive action. Calling something as just an
'excuse' would imply that the explanation proffered is
believed not to be true. Thus said, there is no formula
that caters to all situations and, therefore, each case for
condonation of delay based on existence or absence of
sufficient cause has to be decided on its own facts. At
this stage, we cannot but lament that it is only excuses,
and not explanations, that are more often accepted for
condonation of long delays to safeguard public interest
from those hidden forces whose sole agenda is to
ensure that a meritorious claim does not reach the
higher courts for adjudication."
14. Though condonation of delay being a discretionary power
available to Courts, however, exercise of discretion must
necessarily depend upon the sufficiency of the cause shown and the
degree of accetability of the explanation, irrespective of length of
delay.
( 2025:HHC:18150 )
15. In present case, there is not only considerably long delay,
but there is only excuse, and for absence of sufficiency cause, and
for want of material particulars especially acceptable explanation
for casual approach, prayer of Insurance Company cannot be
accepted.
16. Pleadings of the application and material placed on record
clearly depict that explanation being rendered by the Insurance
Company is not explanation depicting sufficient cause which prevented
the Insurance Company from filing the appeal within time, but only a
lame excuse. As observed in Sheo Raj Singh's case, submissions made
by and on behalf of Insurance Company, nowhere explain the
satisfactory conduct on the part of Insurance Company, so as to entitle
the Insurance Company for condonation of delay. In fact, there is no
cause for keeping the matter pending except lame excuse stated in
the application.
17. It is also apt to record that as observed by the Supreme
Courtin The Special Tehsildar, Land Acquisition, Kerala Vs. K.V.
Ayisumma,(1996) 10 SCC 634 that it would not be necessary for the
State to provide day-to-day explanation of delay while seeking
condonation of the same and the Court should be pragmatic, but not
pedantic but not adopting the strict standard of proof leads to grave
miscarriage of public justice, resulting in public mischief by skillful
management of delay in the process of filing the appeal. However, in
the given facts and circumstances of present case, Insurance Company
are not entitled for benefit of the aforesaid observation/decision of the
Supreme Court, because no effort has been made to place the record
even about movement of file for explaining sufficient cause, which has
established absence of due diligence as well as laxity on the part of
( 2025:HHC:18150 )
Insurance Company. Therefore, Insurance Company is not entitled for
discretionary relief for condonation of delay in present case.
18. In the facts and circumstances of the present matter as
well as pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court no cause has
been disclosed for explaining the delay, much less sufficient cause,
which prevented the Insurance Company-State for filing the appeal
within limitation period.
19. For considering plea of the Insurance Company-State with
regard to merit of proposed appeal, judgment of Supreme Court,
passed in State of MP & Ors. Vs. Bherula, reported in (2010) 10 SCC
654 is also relevant wherein it has been observed that though Court
has jurisdiction to condone the delay in appropriate case, but even in
good case hearing on merit can be rejected for delay in appealing the
Court because a bar of limitation can even shut out good cases. In
present case, there is neither sufficient cause to condone the delay nor
merit in proposed appeal.
Accordingly the application is dismissed and disposed of.
In view of dismissal of application for condonation of delay proposed
appeal also stands disposed of.
(Vivek Singh Thakur)
Judge
June 4, 2025 (g.m)
