Sikkim High Court
The Branch Manager Shriram General Ins ... vs Chanda Chettri And Ors on 2 August, 2024
Author: Meenakshi Madan Rai
Bench: Meenakshi Madan Rai
Court No.2
HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM
Record of Proceedings
I.A. No.01 of 2024 in MAC App./64/2024/(Filing No.)
THE BRANCH MANAGER, APPLICANT
SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
VERSUS
CHANDA CHETTRI AND OTHERS RESPONDENTS
Date: 02.08.2024
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI MADAN RAI, JUDGE
For Applicant Mr. Rahul Rathi, Advocate.
For Respondents
R-1 to R-4 Mr. Sushant Subba, Advocate.
R-5 Ms. Tashi Doma Sherpa, Advocate.
ORDER
1. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties on I.A. No.01 of 2024
which is an application filed by the Applicant under Section 173(1) of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking condonation of 83 days' delay in
filing the instant Appeal.
2. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the delay
occurred on account of the fact that although the Judgment was
pronounced on 22-12-2023, after obtaining the impugned Judgment
online, it was forwarded to the Branch Office at Siliguri of the Applicant-
Company on 02-01-2024. That, the Branch Office at Siliguri, forwarded
the File to the Regional Office at Kolkata seeking their opinion. The
Regional Office at Kolkata thereafter forwarded the File on 24-02-2024
to its Legal Department for legal opinion. The Legal Department opined
on 14-03-2024 that an Appeal ought to be filed. The File then made its
way back to the Regional Office at Kolkata, which forwarded it to the
Branch Office at Siliguri, where it was received on 04-04-2024. The File
was ultimately received by the conducting Counsel on 12-04-2024 for
preparing the Appeal. The draft of the Appeal was then sent to the
Branch Office at Siliguri on 20-04-2024, which again forwarded it to the
Court No.2
HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM
Record of Proceedings
Regional Office at Kolkata on 27-04-2024 which received the File only
on 04-05-2024. The Legal Department vetted it on 10-05-2024 and
returned it to the Branch Office at Siliguri on 22-05-2024. The Branch
Office at Siliguri received it on 30-05-2024 after which it took about
twelve days for preparing the Memo of Appeal which came to be filed on
12-06-2024. It is submitted by Learned Counsel for the Applicant that
the delay occurred on account of the File having to be processed as per
the official procedure and the delay was neither intentional nor was it
with any other ulterior motive. Hence, the delay may be condoned as
the Applicant was prevented by sufficient cause in filing the Appeal.
3. Objecting to the prayer for delay, Learned Counsel for the
Respondents No.1 to 4 submitted that the delay has not been
sufficiently explained as the Judgment was pronounced on 22-12-2023
but the application nowhere mentions when the Applicant availed of the
copy of the Judgment. The File movement indicates that the process
took about twenty days' each for transmission from one office to the
next and this cannot be considered as a sufficient ground for condoning
the delay. An Execution Petition was filed before the Learned Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Gangtok, Sikkim, which was determined and
the award amount of ₹ 20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakhs) only, along
with interest, was released by the Applicant and received by the
Respondents No.1 to 4/Claimants, in MACT Case No.23 of 2022, Chanda
Chettri and Others vs. The Branch Manager, Shriram General Insurance
Company Limited and Another. Hence, the Petition for delay deserves
no consideration and the amount of compensation having been
released, the Appeal itself is infructuous.
Court No.2
HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM
Record of Proceedings
4. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.5 had no
submissions to make.
5. I have given due consideration to the submissions put forth
by Learned Counsel for the parties and it is evident from the reasons
detailed in the Petition that the official procedure led to the delay.
Indeed, now when all communications are being transmitted
electronically, it is rather appalling that the Applicant-Company insists
on living in the 19th Century and processing the physical File from office
to office eating into valuable time, which could otherwise be utilized
fruitfully. Evidently they do not even have a mechanism to expedite
the process as each office appears to be drowning in its own importance
and inefficiency and expending exorbitantly long periods of time to
consider steps to be taken. Nevertheless, considering that specific
dates have been given for the delay that has occurred, I find that the
delay has been sufficiently explained. The delay is accordingly
condoned, subject to payment of costs of ₹ 50,000/-(Rupees fifty
thousand) only, to be paid to the Respondents No.1 to 4/Claimants by
the Applicant-Company within a period of seven days from today.
6. I.A. No.01 of 2024 stands disposed of.
7. Register the Appeal.
Judge
02.08.2024
sdl
