Bajaj Allianz General Insurance ... vs Bisram
2022 Latest Caselaw 3482 MP

                          1                               M.A. No. 4199 of 2018


        The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh

                          MA No. 4199 of 2018
        (BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. Vs BISRAM AND OTHERS)



Jabalpur, Dated : 11-03-2022


      Shri Aditya Narayan, Advocate for the appellant.

      Shri S.K. Tiwari, Advocate for the respondents No. 1 and 2.

Shri Ranjit Singh, Advocate for the respondents No. 3 and 4.

Heard on I.A. No. 10950/2018 an application under Section 5

of Limitation Act for condonation of delay.

Learned counsel for appellant submits that the copy of impugn

award was received at the Regional Office at Bhopal from where all

the legal cases are observed and prosecuted, thereafter, the file was

sent for getting opinion for preferring appeal or to comply the order.

After getting opinion, the file was sent to the Corporate Office at

Pune for taking approval for filing an appeal and the payment request

is carried out. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that

after getting approval for filing the appeal, the file was sent to the

Office o Panel Advocate at Jabalpur for filing the appeal during

summer vacation but due to renovation work in the office of the

Panel Advocate inadvertently the file got stacked up with the

disposed off files and the appeal could not be filed within time. When

the office of the appellant raised query regarding the status of appeal,

then it was found that the appeal had not yet been filed. Because of

misplacement of the file in the office of the Panel Advocate, the filing

of instant appeal got delayed. The delay of 127 days is occasioned in

the filing of the appeal is neither willful nor deliberate because of the

attended circumstances and is thus bonafide and liable to be

condoned.

Learned counsel for the respondents no. 3 and 4 opposes the

application and submits that the appellant has filed the instant

application in very casual manner without explaining the delay. In

that application there is no date mentioned to receive the certified

copy by the Regional Office Bhopal on which date they have sent for

opinion to file appeal or complying the order. They have also not

mentioned the date when in the Corporate Office Pune initiate the

proceeding for approval to file the appeal. It is also very casual

manner stated that the file was stacked with disposal file of counsel

for the appellant but there is no specification by way of any affidavit

seems to be concocted and frivolous, therefore, the delay has not

been explained properly, hence, application is to be rejected.

Learned counsel for respondent no. 1 and 2 also opposes the

application and prays for rejection of the applicant. He relied upon

the following judgments:-

1. Langri (Smt.) and others Vs. Chhota and others, 1992 RN 289.

2. D. Gopinathan Pillai Vs. State of Kerala and another, 2007(II) MPWN 25.

3. Amalendu Kumar Bera and others Vs. State of W.B. 2013(3) MPLJ 1.

4. Union of India and others Vs. Nripen Sarma 2013(3) MPLJ 5.

In the case of Langri (Smt.) and others (supra) it has held that

'the parties are not entitled to condonation of delay as a matter of

right Proof of sufficient cause is a condition precedent for exercise of

discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court by Section 5 of the Act.

Court cannot extend the period of limitation prescribed by an Act or

law under its inherent power'.

In the case of D. Gopinathan Pillai (supra), Hon'ble Supreme

Court has held that 'condonation of delay of 3320 days cannot be

condoned without explaining properly, satisfactorily and

convincingly the reasons threreof Court cannot condone the delay

only on ground of sympathy'.

In the case of Amalendu Kumar Bera (supra) Hon'ble supreme

Court has held that 'condonation of delay in filing the appeal or

revision by the State cannot be mechanically considered merely

because it is the State. In absence of "sufficient case" delay need not

be condoned'.

Similarly in the case of Nnripen Sarma (supra) Hon'ble

Supreme Court has held that 'Civil Appeal filed by Union of India

against dismissal of appeal filed before the High Court because of

inordinate delay of 239 days Civil Appeal is also barred by limitation

of 114 days. No satisfactory explanation exist for condoning

inordinate delay before the Supreme Court also. Court expressed

deep anguish and distress since majority matters filed by the Union of

India are hopelessly barred by limitation and no satisfactory

explanations exist for condoning inordinate delay in filing those

appeals, therefore, appeals have been dismissed'.

In the instant case, it appears that there is a delay of 124 days in

filing the appeal attributed to some procedural formalities which were

required to be conducted before taking an administrative decision. In

the similar facts and circumstances of the case, a Division Bench of

this Court in W.A. 747/2011 (State of M.P. and another Vs. Bansi Lal

Dehariya and in W.A. No. 503/2016 (State of M.P. Vs. Triloki Nath

Guha) delayed appeals of 235 days and 511 days respectively have

been condoned. Therefore, the judgment referred by learned counsel

for respondents no. 1 & 2 are different from the facts of present case,

hence are not applicable in this case.

In the instant case, it appears that there is a delay of 124 days in

filing the appeal attributed to some procedural formalities which were

required to be conducted before taking an administrative decision,

which appears to be bonafide, therefore, I.A. No. 10950/2018 is

hereby allowed. Delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.

List this appeal for admission after two weeks.

(PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA) JUDGE

MISHRA ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA 2022.03.15 11:17:11 +05'30'