Madhya Pradesh High Court
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Shailja Patel on 3 April, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA
ON THE 3rd OF APRIL, 2024
MISC. APPEAL No. 4191 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. THROUGH
BRANCH VIJAY NAGAR MR 4 ROAD DISTRICT
JABALPUR (MP)
(Insurer of Motorcycle No.MP-20-NB-7948)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI N.S.RUPRAH - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SHAILJA PATEL W/O LATE SHRI NANDLAL
PATEL, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
2. RAGHUVENDRA S/O LATE SHRI NANDLAL
PATEL, AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS,
3. ANURADHA D/O LATE SHRI NANDLAL PATEL,
AGED ABOUT 7 YEARS,
RESPONDENT NO.2 AND 3 BEING MINOR,
THROUGH NATURAL GUARDIAN (MOTHER)
SHAILJA PATEL
4. GOURA W/O SHRI ANANTRAM PATEL, AGED
ABOUT 60 YEARS,
5. ANANTRAM S/O LATE SHRI RAMA PATEL,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
2
All RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 5 RESIDENT OF
VILLAGE UPROND TEHSIL PATAN DISTRICT
JABALPUR (MP)
6. OMKAR SINGH LODHI S/O PANCHAM SINGH
LODHI RESIDENT OF H.NO.167 PIPARIYA
DISTRICT GOTEGAON DISTRICT
NARSINGHPUR (DRIVER OF MOTORCYCLE
NO.MP. -20-NB-7948) (MP)
7. SANJAY LODHI S/O ROSHAN SINGH LODHI
R/O JOTPUR PADAV TILWARAGHAT P.S.
BARGI DISTRICT JABALPUR (OWNER OF
MOTORCYCLE NO. MP-20-NB-7948) (MP)
.....RESPONDENTS
(Respondent No.1 entered appearance long back but none were appearing on his
behalf and Respondent no.2 , 3 , 4, 5 and 6 are treated to be served)
This appeal coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
The following issues arise for consideration:-
(i) Whether the appellant/insurance company has shown
sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 364 days in filing this
appeal before this Court ?
(ii) Depending on the outcome of the above issue this Court
considered are ?
(iii) Whether the appellant/insurance company has made out a
case to consider the application for condonation of delay of 364
days ?
(2) The brief facts are that the present appeal filed by the
appellant/insurance company against the award passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal dated 13.04.2022, with delay of 364 days filed IA
No.10488/2023 for condonation of delay.
(3) Counsel for the appellant/insurance company has stated that the
claimants/respondent no.1 to 5 filed claim petition before the learned
Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.57,79,910/- and the learned Tribunal
awarded the compensation Rs.57,79,910/- against the award passed by the
learned Tribunal, the appellant/insurance company filed this appeal with
delay of 364 days. He has further stated that he could not file appeal in time
that the officer in-charge Mr.Tirkey retired from service on 31.07.2022 and
no one in-charge for four months to monitor the High Court cases and further
stated the office of TP Hub shifted from Vijay Nagar to Marhatal, due to
which, the said file was misplaced and in the month of July, 2023 the said file
was traced out in the office. He pray for condone the delay of 364 days in
filing the appeal and admit the appeal.
(4) Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company submitted
arguments on the same set of facts which were pleaded in the petition.
(5) This Court has considered the submissions made. Normally a very
lenient view is being taken in the matters of this nature, particularly, where
the appeals filed by the appellant/insurance against the award passed by the
learned Tribunal but the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held that sufficient
cause should be shown and that the word 'sufficient cause' should receive a
liberal construction, so as to advance substantial justice.
(6) In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, I am posing a
question why the delay has to be condoned mechanically merely because the
shifting of office from one place to another and the file was misplaced and
there was no in-charge to look-after the cases for monitoring the same and he
could not file the appeal in time, is not at all proper explanation. Though I am
conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was
no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide, a liberal
concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice but I am of the
considered view that in the facts and circumstances, the appellant cannot take
advantage of his own negligence.
(7) A decision reported in the case of Chief Post Master & Ors vs Living
Media India Ltd.& Anr1, wherein it is held as under:-
"After incorporating the above explanation, this Court
refused to condone the delay by observing thus:
"3. .......Having regard to the law of limitation which binds
everybody, we cannot find any way of granting relief. It is
true that Government should not be treated as any other
private litigant as, indeed, in the case of the former the
decisions to present and prosecute appeals are not
individual but are institutional decisions necessarily bogged
down by the proverbial red-tape. But there are limits to this
also. Even with all this latitude, the explanation offered for
the delay in this case merely serves to aggravate the
attitude of indifference of the Revenue in protecting its
common interests. The affidavit is again one of the
stereotyped affidavits making it susceptible to the criticism
that the Revenue does not seem to attach any importance to
the need for promptitude even where it affects its own
interest."
(8) Another decision in the case of Government of Maharashtra (Water
Resources Department) Represented by Executive Engineer vs. Borse
Brothers Engineers & contractors Private Ltd.2, para 65 and 66 are as
under:-
"65. Apart from this, there is a long delay of 131 days
beyond the 60-day period provided for filing an appeal
under Section 13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act. There
is no explanation worth the name contained in the
condonation of delay application, beyond the usual file-
pushing and administrative exigency. This appeal is
therefore dismissed.
66. In the civil appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 15278 of
2020, the impugned judgment of the High Court of Madhya
Pradesh dated 27-1-2020 [M.P. Poorv Kshetra Vidyut Vitran
1. AIR 2012 SC 1506
2. 2021 6 SCC 460
Co. Ltd. v. Swastik Wires, 2020 SCC OnLine MP 3003] relies
upon Consolidated Engg. [Consolidated Engg. Enterprises v.
Irrigation Deptt., (2008) 7 SCC 169] and thereby states that
the judgment of this Court in N.V. International [N.V.
International v. State of Assam, (2020) 2 SCC 109 : (2020) 1
SCC (Civ) 275] would not apply. The judgment of the High
Court is wholly incorrect inasmuch as Consolidated Engg.
[Consolidated Engg. Enterprises v. Irrigation Deptt., (2008)
7 SCC 169] was a judgment which applied the provisions of
Section 14 of the Limitation Act and had nothing to do with
the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.N.V.
International [N.V. International v. State of Assam, (2020) 2
SCC 109 : (2020) 1 SCC (Civ) 275] was a direct judgment
which applied the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation
Act and then held that no condonation of delay could take
place beyond 120 days. The High Court was bound to follow
N.V. International [N.V. International v. State of Assam,
(2020) 2 SCC 109 : (2020) 1 SCC (Civ) 275] , as on the date
of the judgment of the High Court, N.V. International [N.V.
International v. State of Assam, (2020) 2 SCC 109 : (2020) 1
SCC (Civ) 275] was a judgment of the two learned Judges of
the Supreme Court binding upon the High Court by virtue of
Article 141 of the Constitution. On this score, the impugned
judgment of the High Court deserves to be set aside."
(9) By following the above judgments read together, the delay ultimately
cannot be condoned. The affidavit filed by the Administrative Officer of
Insurance Company suffers from lack of material particulars. The affidavit
filed in support of the submissions of learned counsel but there is a huge
delay of 364 days in filing the appeal and the facts of this case also show that
there was no sufficient cause whatsoever to condone such a long delay.
(10) Coming back to the Motor Vehicles Act, the legislative intent is to
provide appropriate compensation for the victims and to protect their
substantive rights.
(11). If the present affidavit is examined against the backdrop of the case,
law and facts including Postmaster General's case it is a clear that the
affidavits suffers from a lack of material particulars. The mere fact that there
was shifting of office and there was no officer in-charge to look-after the
cases after Mr. Tirkey retirement and the file was misplaced. If paragraph-2
and 3 of the affidavit are viewed in contra distinction to the affidavit
reproduced by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in para-20 of the judgment of
Postmaster General. It is clear that there is no clarity nor is there any
chronology. Even the chronology of the dates mentioned in the case of
Postmaster General in para-20 was held to be insufficient by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India.
(12) Under these circumstances, it is clear that there is absolutely no clarity
and there is no chronology of delay in filing this appeal, for important note
nothing is stated to cause delay except from shifting the office from one place
to another and the file was misplaced and that only ground cannot be
considered. Therefore, whenever be the inherent merits of the case, in view
of the above judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that delay is
insufficiently explained, this Court has to dismiss the application for
condonation of delay.
(13). Accordingly, I.A.No.10488/2023 is dismissed. Consequently, the
appeal is rejected. This Court places on record its appreciation for the manner
in which the counsel for the appellant argued the matter and tried to
substantiate the unsubstantiable and tried to justify is unjustifiable. No costs.
(14). Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand dismissed.
DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA,J
rk
Date: 2024.04.04 16:43:21 +05'30'
