Sikkim High Court
The Branch Manager, Hdfc Ergo General ... vs Shanti Rai And Ors on 17 April, 2025
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./132/2024 (Filing No.)
THE BRANCH MANAGER, APPLICANT
HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
VERSUS
SHANTI RAI AND OTHERS RESPONDENTS
Date: 17.04.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI MADAN RAI, JUDGE
For Applicant Mr. Rahul Rathi, Advocate.
For Respondents
R-1 to R-5 Mr. Tarun Choudhary, Advocate (through VC).
R-6 Mr. Kumar Sharma, Advocate.
R-7 None present.
ORDER (ORAL)
1. Heard on I.A. No.01 of 2024, which is an application under
Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, filed by the Applicant,
seeking condonation of 370 days' delay, in filing the Appeal. The
application is supported by an Affidavit.
2. Learned Counsel of the Applicant, while making out grounds
for condoning the delay, contended that, as the impugned Judgment of
the Learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, at Namchi, Sikkim
(hereinafter, the "MACT"), was pronounced on 30-08-2023, the Memo
of Appeal ought to have been filed on 28-11-2023. The impugned
Judgment was obtained on 15-09-2023 by the then conducting Counsel
and forwarded to the Branch Office of the Applicant at Siliguri, the very
next day. The said Office forwarded the File to the Regional Office at
Kolkata on 19-09-2023, seeking their opinion regarding the filing of the
Appeal. The Regional Office in turn forwarded it to their Legal
Department on 25-09-2023, which returned the File on 30-09-2023 and
made its way back to Kolkata Office on 31-10-2023. That, the Siliguri
Office received the File on 13-10-2023 and was subsequently received
Court No.2
HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM
Record of Proceedings
by the conducting Counsel on 24-10-2023. The Learned Counsel also
received the security deposit, which was duly deposited before the
concerned Learned MACT. The Memo of Appeal was prepared and filed
before the High Court on 30-11-2023. That, as Learned Counsel for the
Applicant was not the conducting Counsel then, he was informed by the
Applicant, that, the Appeal was in defects before the Registry and the
Counsel without rectifying the defects, was not traceable for an entire
year thereafter. That, on account of the conduct of the Counsel and
steps not having been taken by him, the present Counsel was engaged
by the Applicant-Company. The File then made its rounds for clearance
from the various Offices of the Applicant-Company and the Appeal was
filed on 02-12-2024, within fifteen days of the present Counsel being
engaged. That, in view of the grounds put forth the delay being
unintentional and bona fide and having been sufficiently explained may
be condoned.
3. Per contra, Learned Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 3
and Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.4, objected to the prayer
for condonation of delay, on grounds that, the Applicant was well aware
of his rights, being an educated person and ought to have taken steps
well within time, even if the previous conducting Counsel was not
traceable. That, in fact, the Appeal that was filed on 02-12-2024 has
been filed without obtaining any no objection certificate from the
Counsel engaged previously. Consequently, the Applicant could have
done so earlier in time instead of harassing the Respondents. That, the
delay having not been sufficiently explained the Petition deserves a
dismissal.
Court No.2
HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM
Record of Proceedings
4. I have heard Learned Counsel for the parties at length and
given due consideration to the submissions put forth. It is trite to
mention that the Court can exercise its discretion while condoning the
delay or refusing to do so. All that the Court is required to consider is
whether the delay has been sufficiently explained and the grounds put
forth are bona fide. Having considered the grounds given by Learned
Counsel for the Applicant, it must be remarked that the Applicant has
been remiss in drafting the Petition as there is a confusion about the
dates mentioned. In Paragraph 5 of the petition, it is mentioned that
the File was forwarded to the Regional Office, at Kolkata, West Bengal
on 31-10-2023, but in Paragraph 6, it is mentioned that the Siliguri
Office then received it on 13-10-2023. In Paragraph 7, the Applicant
states that the File was received by the conducting Counsel on 24-10-
2023. If the Kolkata Office received the File only on 31-10-2023, it is
unfathomable as to how petition mentions that the Counsel received the
File on 24-10-2023. Learned Counsel failed to explain the anomalies
appearing in the Paragraphs mentioned hereinabove or even to correct
the typographical errors, if they were such errors. That apart, the
records of the Registry before this Court do not indicate that any Appeal
came to be filed on 30-11-2023 by the previous conducting Counsel.
The Appeal pertaining to the parties was filed only on 02-12-2024 and
not at any time prior thereto. The anomalies are being pointed out to
ensure that drafting of such petitions are not done in undue haste and
carelessly without a thought to the details. In Esha Bhattacharjee vs.
Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and Others the
(2013) 12 SCC 649
Court No.2
HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM
Record of Proceedings
Supreme Court has cautioned parties to a lis at Paragraph 22.1(a) as
follows;
"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."
The Applicant would do well to bear this in mind.
(i) That having been said, it is now settled law that "sufficient
cause" is elastic enough for Courts to do substantial justice. When
substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each
other it is no more res integra that the former will prevail. Regardless
of the errors in the dates, it appears that the delay occurred solely on
account of the irresponsibility and tardiness of the previous Counsel
engaged by the Applicant. As held by this Court in The Divisional
Manager, National Insurance Company Limited and Another vs. Dhanesh
Gupta alias Dhanesh Kumar Gupta and Another , the Applicant cannot be
held at ransom for the tardiness of his Counsel.
5. In view of the foregoing discussions, I am of the considered
view that the delay has been sufficiently explained and ought to be and
is accordingly condoned.
6. I.A. No.01 of 2024 stands disposed of accordingly.
Judge
17.04.2025
ds/sdl
I.A. No.01 of 2024 in MAC/App./137/2024 (Filing No.), decided by this Court on 24-02-2025.
