Sikkim High Court
The Branch Manager Shriram General Ins ... vs Stenshila Hansdak on 6 August, 2024
Author: Meenakshi Madan Rai
Bench: Meenakshi Madan Rai
THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM : GANGTOK
(Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)
DATED : 6th August, 2024
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SINGLE BENCH : THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI MADAN RAI, JUDGE
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I.A. No.01 of 2024 in MAC App./42/2024/(Filing No.)
Applicant : The Branch Manager,
Shriram General Insurance Company Limited
versus
Respondents : Stenshila Hansdak and Others
Application under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance
Mr. Rahul Rathi, Advocate for the Applicant.
Ms. Vidhya Lama, Mr. Nima Tshering Sherpa and Mr. Loknath
Khanal, Advocates for Respondent No.1.
None for Respondent No.2.
None for Respondent No.3.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER (ORAL)
Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.
1. Respondent No.1 has entered appearance through
Learned Counsel today.
despite service of notice.
3. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties on I.A. No.01
of 2024, which is an application file by the Applicant under
Section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking
condonation of sixty-one days' delay in preferring the Appeal.
4. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the
impugned Judgment was pronounced by the Learned Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gangtok, Sikkim, (hereinafter, the
I.A. No.01 of 2024 in MAC App./42/2024/(Filing No.) 2
The Branch Manager, Shriram General Insurance Company Limited vs. Stenshila Hansdak and Others
"MACT"), on 30-10-2023. The Applicant applied for the certified
copy of the Judgment only on 02-03-2024. The Appeal ought to
have been filed within ninety days' from the date of the
impugned Judgment. Thereafter, on the Judgment being made
available to the Applicant, the Appeal was filed on 30-03-2024
after necessary orders were obtained from the Branch Office at
Siliguri and the Regional Office at Kolkata. Hence, the delay
being bona fide and having been satisfactorily explained in the
application, it may be condoned as the litigants ought not to be
made to suffer due to mere technicalities.
5. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1
vehemently objects to the Petition for delay and submits that the
day-to-day delay has not even been explained in the Petition.
That, the impugned Judgment had been applied for belatedly by
the Applicant and the delay ought not to be granted to the
prejudice of the Respondent No.1, aged about 25 years, who had
to lose her father aged about 50 years during the motor vehicle
accident, who was the only earning member in the family. The
Respondent No.1 was dependent on his income and the
prolonged litigation has adversely affected her. That, as the
grounds are not satisfactorily explained the application be
dismissed.
6. The following facts can be culled out from the
application and the submissions put forth by Learned Counsel for
the Applicant;
(i) The impugned Judgment was pronounced by the Learned MACT
at Gangtok on 30-10-2023.
I.A. No.01 of 2024 in MAC App./42/2024/(Filing No.) 3
The Branch Manager, Shriram General Insurance Company Limited vs. Stenshila Hansdak and Others
(ii) As per the averments in the application after such
pronouncement, the Applicant applied for certified copy of the
Judgment only on 02-03-2024 about four months after the
pronouncement. The Judgment was made available on the
same date.
(iii) The Memo of Appeal ought to have been filed on or before 28-
01-2024, i.e., ninety days from the pronouncement of the
impugned Judgment.
(iv) It was further averred that after obtaining the impugned
Judgment on 02-03-2024 it was forwarded to the Branch Office
at Siliguri, West Bengal, for opinion on 10-11-2023.
(v) The Branch Office at Siliguri forwarded the File to the Regional
Office situated at Kolkata, West Bengal.
(vi) The Kolkata Office forwarded the File to its Legal Department
seeking its opinion on 23-11-2023.
(vii) The Legal Department gave its opinion on 14-12-2023 and
returned the File to the Regional Office at Kolkata.
(viii) The Kolkata Regional Office returned it to the Siliguri Branch
Office which was received on 22-12-2023, directing the Counsel
to prepare the Memo of Appeal.
(ix) The File was received by the conducting Counsel on 02-02-2024
and sent to Siliguri Office with the draft Memo of Appeal on 19-
02-2024 which then sent it to Kolkata Office on 26-02-2024.
(x) The Kolkata office received the File on 06-03-2024 and
forwarded it to its Legal Department on 08-03-2024.
(xi) The Legal Department vetted the Memo of Appeal and
forwarded it to the Regional Office at Kolkata for onward
transmission to the Branch Office at Siliguri on 19-03-2024.
(xii) The Regional Office at Kolkata sent it to the Branch Office where
it was received on 21-03-2024.
(xiii) Thereafter, nine days was taken by the Counsel to finalise the
Memo of Appeal which came to be filed on 30-03-2024.
That, a delay of sixty-one days took place in filing the
Appeal.
I.A. No.01 of 2024 in MAC App./42/2024/(Filing No.) 4
The Branch Manager, Shriram General Insurance Company Limited vs. Stenshila Hansdak and Others
7. It is evident that the application contains erroneous
dates as seen from Paragraph No.6(i), (ii) and (iv) supra,
nonetheless, Learned Counsel for the Applicant during his verbal
submissions before this Court made no effort whatsoever to
clarify as to why the errors had crept in Paragraph 2 of the
application with regard to the dates. The party seeking a relief
has to ensure that the application filed by it is in order with all
details mentioned correctly and should not give an impression to
the Court that it has been filed with a "couldn't care less"
attitude. It is not the duty of this Court to prompt or make
corrections for one party to the detriment or prejudice of the
other. In this context, in Esha Bhattacharjee vs. Managing
Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and Others the
Supreme Court has held that;
"21. From the aforesaid authorities the principles
that can broadly be culled out are:
..................................................................................
21.2. (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.
..................................................................................
21.4. (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.
21.5. (v) Lack of bona fides imputable to a party
seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant
fact.
..................................................................................
21.7. (vii) The concept of liberal approach has to
encapsule the conception of reasonableness and it cannot
be allowed a totally unfettered free play.
..................................................................................
21.9. (ix) The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a
party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant
(2013) 12 SCC 649
I.A. No.01 of 2024 in MAC App./42/2024/(Filing No.) 5
The Branch Manager, Shriram General Insurance Company Limited vs. Stenshila Hansdak and Others
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.
..................................................................................
21.12. (xii) The entire gamut of facts are to be
carefully scrutinised and the approach should be based on
the paradigm of judicial discretion which is founded on
objective reasoning and not on individual perception.
..................................................................................
22. To the aforesaid principles we may add some
more guidelines taking note of the present day scenario.
They are:
22.1. (a) An application for condonation of delay
should be drafted with careful concern and not in a
haphazard 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.
22.2. (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.
..................................................................................
22.4. (d) The increasing tendency to perceive
delay as a non-serious matter and, hence, lackadaisical
propensity can be exhibited in a nonchalant manner
requires to be curbed, of course, within legal
parameters."
8. From the averments in the application and the
submissions put forth by Learned Counsel for the Applicant and
having given due consideration to the same, I am of the view
that the Applicant has not only been careless and callous with
regard to the contents of the application but has taken no care
to make amendments in the application or to rectify the errors in
his verbal submissions before this Court and thereby clarify the
stance of the Applicant. The Respondent No.1 has been granted
compensation of ₹ 12,59,449/- (Rupees twelve lakhs, fifty nine
thousand, four hundred and forty nine) only, by the Learned
MACT and the challenge is to the 30% granted under the head of
"Future Prospects" and its reduction to 10%. If such was the
I.A. No.01 of 2024 in MAC App./42/2024/(Filing No.) 6
The Branch Manager, Shriram General Insurance Company Limited vs. Stenshila Hansdak and Others
case then the Applicant was required to have been vigilant about
its rights and not to have taken for granted that delay would be
condoned, sans proper and sufficient grounds to the satisfaction
of the Court.
9. As the Applicant has failed not only to prove its bona
fides but has failed to explain the delay satisfactorily, I am
therefore, constrained to reject and dismiss the I.A. as also the
accompanying Appeal.
( Meenakshi Madan Rai )
Judge
06-08-2024
Approved for reporting : Yes
ds/sdl
