New India Assurance Company Ltd vs Nrusingh @ Nrusinha Charan Rout
2022 Latest Caselaw 1989 Ori

                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                      MACA No.247 of 2020
                 New India Assurance Company Ltd.           ....          Appellant
                                       Mr. Prasanta Kumar Mishra (1), Advocate
                                             -versus-
                 Nrusingh @ Nrusinha Charan Rout
                 and Another                                ....       Respondents
                     Mr. Nrusingh @ Nrusinha Charan Rout, Respondent No.1 in
                                                                     person
                           CORAM:
                           SHRI JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
                                          ORDER

28.3.2022 Order No. I.A. No.503 of 2020 & MACA No.247 of 2020

05. 1. Heard Mr. P.K. Mishra (1), learned counsel for the Appellant and Respondent No.1 in person.

2. Mr. Mishra submits that the insurer has come up in appeal against the impugned judgment of learned 2nd MACT, Berhampur wherein compensation to the tune of Rs.3,80,000/- has been granted in favour of the injured claimant in absence of any injury report and other supporting medical documents.

3. Present appeal has been filed with delay of 272 days. Mr. Mishra submits that for complying the official formalities dalay has been caused where the file has been sent to the regional office and after getting approval from the regional office the appeal was filed.

4. Perusal of the petition does not reveal any specific date when the matter was sent to divisional office and then to regional office and then returned with instructions to file the appeal.

5. In course of hearing Mr. Mishra is unable to say the specific dates. The present petition also does not reveal any specific reason for the delay in processing the file nor does it disclose the dates specifically. As such, the explanation offered for condoning the delay is not found satisfactory. Accordingly the prayer for condonation of delay is rejected.

6. The I.A. is dismissed.

7. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed on the ground of limitation.

8. An urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules.

( B.P. Routray) Judge M.K.Panda