Madras High Court
The Divisional Manager vs Ganesan on 14 December, 2021
C.M.P.No.19188 of 2021 in
C.M.A.SR.No.96348 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 14.12.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
C.M.P.No.19188 of 2021
and
C.M.A.SR.No.96348 of 2021
The Divisional Manager,
National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Officer Line, Vellore. ... Appellant
Vs.
Lakshman (died)
1.Ganesan
2.Chandra
3.M/s Tata Project Limited,
No.10, ALC Complex, Manja Kuppam,
Cuddalore.
... Respondents
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P.No.19188 of 2021 in
C.M.A.SR.No.96348 of 2021
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act 1988 to condone the delay of 1397 days in filing the C.M.A against
the Judgment and Decree passed in MCOP No.200 of 2009 dated 16.02.2016 on
the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub-Court), Gudiyatham at
Vellore District.
For Appellant : Ms.R.Janani for
Mr.J.Chandran
For Respondents : Mr.K.A.Ravindran
(for R1 and R2)
ORDER
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J.]
This petition has been filed seeking to condone the delay of 1397 days in
preferring the civil miscellaneous appeal.
2.We have heard Ms.R.Janani, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner/Insurance Company and Mr.K.A.Ravindran, learned counsel appearing
for the respondents 1 and 2/claimants.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P.No.19188 of 2021 in
C.M.A.SR.No.96348 of 2021
3.The petitioner was the second respondent in MCOP No.200 of 2009 on
the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Gudiyatham. The
claim petition came to be filed seeking compensation for the accident that had
taken place on 05.03.2009. The Tribunal awarded compensation, vide award
dated 16.02.2016. A copy application for issuance of certified copies was filed on
17.02.2016 and the copy was made ready and delivered only on 09.03.2016, but
the appeal was filed only on 10.11.2021 i.e., after lapse of about 5½ years.
4.In the affidavit filed in support of this petition, it has been stated that due
to pandemic/lock down and bona fide administrative reasons, the appeal could
not be filed in time. Except this bald and vague statement, no supporting
materials have been produced.
5. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Esha Bhattacharjee vs.
Managing Committee of Raghunathpur, Nafar Academy and Others reported
in 2013 (5) CTC 547 has categorically held that there is a distinction between
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P.No.19188 of 2021 in
C.M.A.SR.No.96348 of 2021
inordinate delay and a delay of short duration and the inordinate delay warrants
strict approach. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment read as follows:-
"15........(i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice-
oriented, non-pedantic approach while dealing with an application for
condonation of delay, for the Courts are not supposed to legalise
injustice but are obliged to remove injustice.
(ii)The terms 'sufficient cause" should be understood in their
proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that
these terms are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper
perspective to the obtaining fact-situation.
(iii)Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal the
technical considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for
emphasis.
(iv)No presumption can be attached to deliberate causation of
delay but, gross negligence on the part of the counsel or litigant is to
be taken note of.
(v)Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation
of delay is a significant and relevant fact.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P.No.19188 of 2021 in
C.M.A.SR.No.96348 of 2021
(vi)It is to be kept in mind that adherence to strict proof should
not affect public justice and cause public mischief because the Courts
are required to be vigilant so that in the ultimate eventuate there is no
real failure of justice.
(vii)The Concept of liberal approach has to encapsule the
conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally
unfettered free play.
(viii)There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay
of short duration or few days, for to the former Doctrine of Prejudice is
attracted, whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That apart, the
first one warrants strict approach whereas the second calls for a
liberal delineation.
(ix)The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its
inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into
consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the Courts
are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both
parties and he said principle cannot be given a total go by in the name
of liberal approach.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P.No.19188 of 2021 in
C.M.A.SR.No.96348 of 2021
(x)If the explanation offered is concocted or the grounds urged
in the Application are fanciful, the Courts should be vigilant not to
expose the other side unnecessarily to face such a litigation.
(xi)It is to be borne in mind that no one gets away with fraud,
misrepresentation or interpolation by taking recourse to the
technicalities of Law of Limitation.
(xii)The entire gamut of facts are to be carefully scrutinized and
the approach should be based on the paradigm of judicial discretion
which is founded on objective reasoning and not on individual
perception.
(xiii)The State or a public body or an entity representing a
collective cause should be given some acceptable latitude."
16. To the aforesaid principles we may add some more
guidelines taking note of the present day scenario. They are: -
a) An application for condonation of delay should be drafted
with careful concern and not in a half hazard manner harbouring
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P.No.19188 of 2021 in
C.M.A.SR.No.96348 of 2021
the notion that the courts are required to condone delay on the
bedrock of the principle that adjudication of a lis on merits is
seminal to justice dispensation system.
b) An application for condonation of delay should not be dealt
with in a routine manner on the base of individual philosophy which
is basically subjective.
c) Though no precise formula can be laid down regard being
had to the concept of judicial discretion, yet a conscious effort for
achieving consistency and collegiality of the adjudicatory system
should be made as that is the ultimate institutional motto.
d) The increasing tendency to perceive delay as a non- serious
matter and, hence, lackadaisical propensity can be exhibited in a
non-challant manner requires to be curbed, of course, within legal
parameters.
6. Admittedly, in this case, there is enormous delay in preferring the present
appeal. Therefore, this Court has to see as to whether sufficient cause has been
shown for condoning the delay. In the matter on hand, no convincing reason was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P.No.19188 of 2021 in
C.M.A.SR.No.96348 of 2021
offered to condone the enormous delay. That apart, we find lack of bona fides in
this case. Hence, this petition is dismissed. Consequently, C.M.A.SR.No.96348
of 2021 is rejected. No costs.
[M.K.K.S.,J.] [V.S.G.,J.]
14.12.2021
skn
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
To
1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Sub Judge, Gudiyatham
2.V.R.Section,
Madras High Court,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.P.No.19188 of 2021 in
C.M.A.SR.No.96348 of 2021
K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J.
and
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
skn
C.M.P.No.19188 of 2021
in
C.M.A.SR.No.96348 of 2021
14.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
