Madras High Court
Shri Ram General Insurance ... vs Shanmugappriya on 3 March, 2021
C.M.P.(MD).No.1960 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 03.03.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
C.M.P(MD)No.1960 of 2021
in
C.M.A(MD).SR.No.2386 of 2021
Shri Ram General Insurance Company Limited,
E-8, E.PI.P, Sita Pura Industrial Area,
Jaipur - 302 022.
Rajasthan State,
Within the jurisdiction of the City Civil
Court of Jaipur.
... Petitioner/Appellant
Vs.
1. Shanmugappriya
2. Minor Madhusoothanan
3. Minor Anjali
[The minor respondents 2 and 3
represented through their mother and
natural guardian Shanmugappriya,
the 1st respondent herein]
4. Vijayakumar
....Respondents/Respondents
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/8
C.M.P.(MD).No.1960 of 2021
Prayer in C.M.P(MD).No.1960 of 2021: This petition is filed under
Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicle Act, to condone the delay of 517 days
in preferring the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the award
passed in M.C.O.P.No.246 of 2015 dated 12.01.2018 on the file of the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal Subordinate Court,
Kumbakonam.
Prayer in C.M.A(MD).SR.No.2386 of 2021: This Civil Miscellaneous
Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,
against the Judgment and Decree dated 12.01.2018 made in MCOP.No.
246 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal
Subordinate Court, Kumbakonam.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Sivaraman
ORDER
This Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed to condone the
delay of 517 days in preferring the above appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
Tribunal passed an award on 12.01.2018 and after receiving a copy of the
order on 24.04.2018, it was forwarded to the lower Court advocate as
well as the High Court panel advocate for getting opinion as to whether
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.P.(MD).No.1960 of 2021
an appeal has to be preferred against the order or not. It is further
submitted that after the receipt of the legal opinion, the necessary
sanction was obtained for filing appeal and the papers were sent to the
panel Advocate again on 18.09.2020. In the above process, there was a
delay of 517 days in filing the above appeal. Hence, the delay is neither
wilful nor wanton and would pray to condone the delay of 517 days in
filing the above appeal.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the
materials available on record.
4. In State of Bihar vs. Deo Kumar Singh (SLP (Civil) No.
13348/2019 dated 05.05.2019, the appeal was filed with the delay of 728
days stating that the delay occurred in obtaining all the sanctions from
the respective departments and also in receiving the affidavit and
vakalathnama from the concerned department. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the said case, has held that a clear signal has to sent to the
Government Authorities that they cannot approach the Court as an when
they please on account of gross incompetence of their officers and that
too without taking any action against the concerned officers. Ultimately,
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.P.(MD).No.1960 of 2021
in the said case, the Apex Court while declining to condone the delay of
728 days in filing the appeal, imposed the cost of Rs.20,000/- to be
recovered from the officers responsible for that delay and be deposited to
the Mediation Centre of the Supreme Court within four weeks.
5. Another case in Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee
of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy & others, [2013 (5) CTC 547
(SC) : 2013 (5) LW 20], it was observed by the Supreme Court that there
should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice oriented, non-pedantic approach
while dealing with an Application for condonation of delay. The
principles elucidated at paras 15 and 16 of the said judgment, are
usefully extracted as follows:
"15. From the aforesaid authorities the principles that
can broadly be culled out are:
(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
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.P.(MD).No.1960 of 2021
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.
(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 en capsule
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 the said
principle cannot be given a total go by in the name of liberal
approach.
(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.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.P.(MD).No.1960 of 2021
(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 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-challan manner requires to be curbed,
of course, within legal parameters."
6. In the present case also, the delay is stated to have been
occurred for want of legal opinion from their panel advocates and for
want of necessary sanction from their office for filing the appeal. In view
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.P.(MD).No.1960 of 2021
of the above judgment of the Apex Court, such kind of reasons cannot be
termed as sufficient reasons to condone the delay. Therefore, this Court
is not inclined to condone the delay of 517 days in filing the appeal.
7. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. In view of the order
passed in CMP(MD)No.1960 of 2021, the connected C.M.A.
(MD)SR.No.2386 of 2021 is rejected at the SR stage itself. No costs.
03.03.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
pkn
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order
may be utilized for official purposes, but,
ensuring that the copy of the order that is
presented is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
To
1. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal Subordinate Court,
Kumbakonam.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.M.P.(MD).No.1960 of 2021
J.NISHA BANU,J
pkn
C.M.P(MD)No.1960 of 2021
in
C.M.A(MD).SR.No.2386 of 2021
03.03.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
