M.V. Act vs Sushama Sahu & Others
2026 Latest Caselaw 1077 Ori

Orissa High Court

M.V. Act vs Sushama Sahu & Others on 6 February, 2026

Author: G. Satapathy

Bench: G. Satapathy

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
               MACA NO.330 of 2025
               & I.A. No. 736 of 2025

   (In the matter of application under Section-173(1) of
   M.V. Act, 1988).
   Area Manager, Reliance       ...                 Appellant
   General Insurance Co. Ltd,
   BBSR
                       -versus-

   Sushama Sahu & Others             ...          Respondents

   For Appellant            : Mr. G.P. Dutta, Advocate

   For Respondents          : Mr. P.K. Mishra, Advocate
                              (R-1 to 4) None(R5)


       CORAM:         JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

     DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT: 06.02.2026 (ORAL)

G. Satapathy, J.

1. The present Interlocutory Application in

I.A. No. 736 of 2025 U/S.5 of the Limitation Act, 1963

has been filed by the appellant-petitioner to condone

the delay of 1147 days in preferring the appeal.

2. Heard, Mr. G.P. Dutta, learned counsel

for the appellant-insurer and Mr. Pradeep Kumar

Mishra, learned counsel for R-1 to 4 in the matter and

perused the record, but none appears for R-5 despite

valid service of notice of the appeal.

3. In support of the condonation of the

delay, the appellant-insurer has taken the following

averments in paragraph 4 to 8 of the petition which

reads as under: -

"4. That it is submitted by this petitioner that after judgment was passed the dealing counsel submitted his opinion in the meantime the concerned Officer of the company left from company therefore the file was misplaced and could not traced out.

5. That the Bhubaneswar Office after tracing the file from the bunch of disposed of files processed the file and after obtaining necessary administrative sanction from the competent Authority forwarded it to the Zonal Office at Kolkata for according approval for filing appeal.

6. That the Zonal office after processing the file and after obtaining necessary administrative sanction from the competent Authority accorded approval and forwarded it to the Bhubaneswar office and in turn the Bhubaneswar office forwarded the file to the counsel for filing appeal.

7. That the counsel after receipt of the file requested the office to hand over all the relevant documents and after receipt of the same drafted the memorandum of appeal and the appeal was accordingly filed.

8. That it is submitted by the petitioner that when the judgment was passed by the learned Tribunal at this time the Officer who was dealing with this file but suffering from Covid- 19 and was on leave from the company and the file was not processed."

4. In the aforesaid backdrop, Mr. Dutta,

however, submits that since there was a

miscommunication from the side of concerned officer of

the Insurance Company, the delay has occasioned and

thereby, the delay is neither intentional nor deliberate,

but rather is due to unavoidable cost and therefore, the

delay may kindly be condoned, but Mr. Pradeep Kumar

Mishra, learned counsel for R-1 to 4, however, submits

that the delay can never be said to be not intentional,

rather it is intentional and the appellant-Insurance

Company is only to avoid its liability has preferred this

appeal with a delay of 1147 days and, therefore, the

delay should not be condoned.

5. It is no doubt true that the appellant-

Insurance Company has taken the plea of

miscommunication from the side of concerned officer

of the Insurance Company which is the primary reason

for condonation of delay, but it can never be disputed

that the Insurance Company is a statutory body and it

cannot be treated like a simple litigant, more

particularly when the Insurance Company is dealing

such matters day in and day out. Further,

compensation to the victim of motor vehicular accident

is a product of Motor Vehicle Accident Act, 1988, which

is a beneficial legislation of law and the aim and

objective of the Act is to provide succor to the victims

of accident and prevent them from destitution. In this

case, the impugned judgment was passed on

24.09.2021 in a case of the year 2019 and the

Insurance Company has fought the claim of the

appellant diligently before the learned Tribunal,

however, it has not preferred the appeal in time. In

the context of condonation of delay, this Court

considers it profitable to refer to the decision in Post

Master General and others Vrs. Living Media

India Ltd. and another; (2012) 3 SCC 563,

wherein the Apex Court in paragraph 29 has observed

as under: -

"29. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the Government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bona fide effort, there is no need to accept their usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/ years due to considerable degree of procedural red tape in the process. The Government Departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment.

Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the Government Department. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few."

6. Additionally, in G. Ramegowda, Major

& Others Vrs. Special Land Acquisition Officer,

Bangalore; (1988) 2 SCC 142, the Apex Court in

paragraph-14 has held as under: -

"14. The contours of the area of discretion of the courts in the matter of condonation of delays in filing appeals are set out in a number of pronouncements of this Court. See: Ramlal, Motilal and Chhotelal v. Rewa Coalfield Ltd.; Shakuntala Devi Jain v. Kuntal Kumari; Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nirmala Devi; Lala Mata Din v. A. Narayanan; Collector, Land Acquisition v. Katiji etc. There is, it is true, no general principle saving the party from all mistakes of its counsel. If there is negligence, deliberate or gross inaction or lack of bona fides on the part of the party or its counsel there is no reason why the opposite side should be exposed to a time- barred appeal. Each case will have to be considered on the particularities of its own special facts. xx xx xx xx xx."

7. In view of the aforesaid facts and the law

laid down by the Apex Court and on a careful scrutiny

of the materials placed on record and the grounds

taken by the appellant-insurer in support of claim for

condonation of delay keeping in view the aim and

objective of Motor Vehicles Act to grant compensation

to the victims of accident and the respondents-

claimants having not yet been compensated since

31.12.2018 for the loss arising out of the accident, in

which their sole bread-earner lost his life and the

explanation as offered by the appellant-insurer for

condonation of delay being unacceptable and the delay

as appearing in this case being the product of

negligence of the Authority of the Insurance Company

and solely attributed to such Insurance Company, the

delay in preferring appeal merits no consideration and

cannot be accepted.

8. In the result, the petition by the appellant

Insurance Company U/S. 5 of the limitation Act in I.A.

No. 736 of 2025 stands dismissed. Since the delay has

not been condoned, the appeal filed by the appellant-

insurer, stands dismissed. The statutory amount so

deposited be refunded back to the appellant-insurer.

(G. Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack,

Dated the 6th day of February, 2026/S.Sasmal

Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 09-Feb-2026 11:12:23