National Insurance Company ... vs Praveen Kumar @ Praveen Kumar ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1124 Jhar

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                            M.A. No. 201 of 2015
            National Insurance Company Limited                       ... Appellant
                                     -Versus-
            Praveen Kumar @ Praveen Kumar Singh & others             ... Respondents
                                     With
                                M.A. No. 272 of 2020
            Praveen Kumar @ Praveen Kumar Singh                      ... Appellant
                                     -Versus-
            Surendra Ray & others                                    ... Respondents
                                            -----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

-----

            For the Claimant                : Mr. Nikhil Ranjan, Advocate
            For the Insurance Company       : Mr. Alok Lal, Advocate
                                            -----

18/15.03.2023     I.A. No.5328 of 2021 has been filed in M.A. No.272 of 2020 on behalf

of the claimant for condoning the delay of 1866 days in filing the appeal.

2. Mr. Nikhil Ranjan, learned counsel for the claimant submits that the

claimant has become 90% handicapped. He further submits that there is

delay in filing the appeal in view of the fact that grandfather of the claimant

Late Ramji Singh died on 17.06.2015 and his father Krishna Singh was

looking after him and no any other family members were capable enough to

take care of the claimant and acquainted with the facts and circumstances

of this case which took substantial period to file this appeal. In the

meantime, when the claimant's father returned from native place, claimant's

mother Late Smt. Shail Devi severely felt ill due to her old age and firstly

got admitted at Bokaro and she was again admitted in another hospital and

she died on 28.06.2016 and due to her death, the entire family members

were in great shocking state of mind. As soon as the family recovered from

such loss, the grandmother of the claimant Late Kawal Baso Devi also died

on 03.02.2017 and father of the claimant was the only person to look into

the entire family members as well as the present case. He also submits that

in the same accident, the father of the claimant has also received injury and

for that compensation case was filed. He was treated during the period of

10.07.2019 to 16.07.2019 at B.L. Kapoor Super Speciality Hospital, Pussa

Road, New Delhi for Vilaternal total knee replacement at left side. He

submits that due to these facts, there is delay in filing the appeal and,

therefore, the delay in filing the appeal may kindly be condoned.

3. On the other hand, Mr. Alok Lal, learned counsel for the insurance

company submits that there is delay of 1866 days in filing the appeal and

the grounds are not sufficient to condone the delay. He further submits that

part of the amount has been deposited, which has been withdrawn by the

claimants. He also submits that at the time of withdrawing the amount,

there was no misery in the family. He submits that only to condone the

delay, these facts have been stated and on the ground of limitation, this

appeal is fit to be dismissed.

4. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the

parties, the Court has gone through the averments made in the I.A. and

finds that two deaths have occurred in the family and the father of the

claimant was the only person to look into the family and he was also taking

steps in the present case. The appeal (M.A. No.201 of 2015) filed by the

insurance company against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claim

Tribunal was filed with 62 days delay and after condoning the delay of 62

days, the appeal of the insurance company was admitted. In the beneficial

piece of legislation, the Court is not required to be too technical and the

matter is required to be decided on its own merit. The interest of the

claimant should be protected and they should not be dragged into further

litigation. Identical was the situation in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v.

Gira Ram and others; [(2002) 10 SCC 176] . Paragraph 5 of the said

judgment is quoted herein below:

"5. In the background of the facts set out hereinabove, we are of the opinion that the High Court was not justified in taking too technical a view of the facts and refusing to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, moved on behalf of the appellant, deserved to be allowed and the appeal deserved to be heard on merits. However, at this stage we feel that the interest of the claimants should be protected and they should not be dragged into further litigation. In such circumstances, the appeal is allowed and disposed of in terms of the following directions:

1. The delay in filing the appeal before the High Court shall stand condoned and the appeal shall be heard and decided on merits, but limited to the question of fixing the liability for satisfying the claim to the extent upheld by the Tribunal, that is whether the liability should be satisfied by the owner and driver or the Insurance Company. In other words, the contest shall remain confined between the owner and driver on the one hand and the insurer on the other.

2. Since the claimants are not present before this Court, the amount lying in deposit here shall be withdrawn and remitted to the Tribunal. Out of such amount deposited by the Insurance Company and remitted to the Tribunal, the amount due and payable to the claimants calculated up to the date of deposit i.e. 26-2-2001 along with interest accrued on fixed deposit of such amount, shall be permitted to be withdrawn by the claimants, subject to adjustment for the amount already received by the claimants under "no-fault liability clause" and any further amount deposited by the Insurance Company under the directions of the High Court and paid to the claimants. The balance amount, if any, shall be returned to the appellant Insurance Company.

3. In the event of the pleas raised by the Insurance Company before the High Court, and available to be raised by the Insurance Company, being upheld and the Insurance Company being exonerated, the Insurance Company shall be at liberty to reimburse itself from the owner and the driver."

5. In view of the above facts and considering the judgment passed by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the prayer made in the I.A. is allowed. The

delay of 1866 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

6. Accordingly, I.A. No. 5328 of 2021 is allowed and disposed of.

7. In M.A. No.272 of 2020, respondent nos. 2 and 4 have appeared.

8. Issue notice upon respondent nos. 1 and 3 by ordinary process as

well as registered post with A/D, for which, requisites etc. must be filed

within a week.

9. After service of the notice upon respondent nos. 1 and 3, place these

matters immediately.

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Ajay/