Sikkim High Court
The Branch Manager, Cholamadalam Ms ... vs Selina Bibi And Ors on 29 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./134/2024 (Filing No.)
THE BRANCH MANAGER, CHOLAMANDALAM MS APPLICANTS
GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY AND ANOTHER
VERSUS
SELINA BIBI AND OTHERS RESPONDENTS
Date: 29.04.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI MADAN RAI, JUDGE
For Applicants Mr. Nirankush Dahal, Advocate.
For Respondents
R-1 to R-6 Ms. Lidya Pradhan, Advocate.
R-7 & R-8 None present.
ORDER
1. I.A. No.01 of 2024, is an application under Section 173(1)
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, filed by the Applicants, seeking
condonation of delay, in filing the Appeal.
2. Learned Counsel for the Applicants advanced the argument
that the Learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gangtok, Sikkim
(hereinafter, the "MACT"), pronounced the impugned Judgment, in
MACT Case No.03 of 2021 (Selina Bibi and Others vs. The Branch Manager,
Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company and Others), on 21-08-
2023, whereupon the Memo of Appeal was to have been filed on or
before 19-11-2023.
3. However, the delay of 357 days' occurred on account of the
following grounds;
(i) After obtaining the impugned Judgment on 12-09-
2023, it was forwarded to the Branch Office, at
Siliguri, on 15-09-2023.
(ii) From the Siliguri Office, it was forwarded to the
Regional Office, at Kolkata, on 30-09-2023.
Court No.2
HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM
Record of Proceedings
(iii) The Kolkata Office sent the File to its Legal
Department on 15-10-2023 for opinion.
(iv) On 30-10-2023, the Legal Department opined that
Appeal ought to be filed.
(v) The File was returned to the Regional Office, at
Kolkata, on 02-11-2023.
(vi) On 15-11-2023, the Siliguri Office received the File.
(vii) On 03-12-2023, the File was handed over to the
Learned conducting Counsel, Mr. Manish Kumar Jain,
who also received the security deposit cheque for a
sum of ₹ 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand)
only, and deposited it before the Learned MACT on
21-12-2023.
(viii) Thereafter, the Learned Counsel failed to file the
Appeal and remained untraceable.
(ix) On 16-10-2024, the File was taken back from the
conducting Counsel.
(x) The Memo of Appeal was then prepared on 21-10-
2024 and filed on 11-11-2024.
The delay having been explained with sufficient cause, may be
condoned and the Appeal admitted.
4. Learned Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 6 on the other
hand submitted that, apart from the fact that the sufficient cause for
the delay has not been put forth, the conduct of the Applicants is also
not above board, for the reason that, after the pronouncement of the
impugned Judgment on 21-08-2023, wherein compensation of ₹
23,62,843/- (Rupees twenty three lakhs, sixty two thousand, eight
hundred and forty three) only, was granted to the Claimants-
Court No.2
HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM
Record of Proceedings
Respondents No.1 to 6, since the Applicants failed to make good the
compensation, after almost a year the Respondents No.1 to 6, were
before the Learned MACT, in MACT (Execution) Case No.09 of 2024
(Selina Bibi and Others vs. The Branch Manager, Cholamandalam MS General
Insurance Company and Another), with the Execution Petition filed on 03-
09-2024. Notice was issued to the Applicants as Judgment Debtors
(hereinafter, the "JDs"), on the same date. The JDs thereafter entered
appearance in the matter on 21-10-2024, through their Counsel before
the Learned MACT as well as on 15-11-2024 i.e., dates fixed by the
Learned MACT. On 15-11-2024, the Bank Account of the Judgment
Debtors were ordered to be attached for a sum of ₹ 32,06,245/-
(Rupees thirty two lakhs, six thousand, two hundred and forty five)
only, inclusive of the interest accrued. On 21-11-2024, the execution
proceeding was completed with payment of compensation completed
and MACT (Execution) Case No.09 of 2024 disposed of. Although, the
Counsel for the JDs had appeared before the Learned MACT, no prayer
was made by them for stay of the execution proceedings. Besides, the
delay of 357 days' has not been sufficiently explained, as the movement
of File and reasons for non-filing of Appeal by the Counsel, engaged
previously, have not been explained. Hence, the application does not
deserve consideration and ought to be dismissed.
5. I have heard Learned Counsel for the parties in extenso. I
have also perused the Orders of the Learned MACT. The Orders in
MACT (Execution) Case No.09 of 2024, reveals inter alia as follows;
(i) On 03-09-2024, the Learned MACT in the Execution
Case has recorded inter alia that, the execution
petition had been filed by the Award Holders
Court No.2
HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM
Record of Proceedings
(hereinafter, the "AHs"). Notice was ordered to be
issued to the JDs.
(ii) On 16-09-2024, both the AHs and the JDs were
absent. Fresh Notice was issued to the JDs with
information to the empanelled Advocate, Shri Rahul
Rathi and to the Nodal Officer, Shri Souvik Chatterjee.
Later, the same day, it is noticed that Ms. Lidya
Pradhan, Learned Counsel for the AHs appeared
before the Learned MACT and noted the next date.
(iii) On 21-10-2024, Mr. K. B. Chettri, Learned Counsel for
the JDs entered appearance for the first time in the
matter and sought adjournment. Learned Counsel for
the AHs however prayed that attachment order may
be passed. The Learned MACT declined to do so
allowing the JDs to take a few days time to make the
payment, if any. In the event of the failure to do so,
the attachment order would be issued.
(iv) On 15-11-2024, both the parties were present before
the Learned MACT, through their Learned Counsel.
Counsel for the JDs submitted that an Appeal has
been filed before the High Court and was pending
registration because of the defects in filing.
(v) Despite the Counsel for the JDs having furnished a
photocopy, mentioning the defects in the filing,
allegedly issued by the filing counter of the High
Court, the Learned MACT went on to record that the
JDs had been provided with sufficient time as the
award was passed in August, 2023, and the Appeal
Court No.2
HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM
Record of Proceedings
before the High Court had not even been registered.
Consequently, the HDFC Bank Account of the JDs was
attached was the sum awarded to the AHs.
(vi) On 21-11-2024, the Learned MACT recorded that all
the six cheques had been handed over to the Counsel
for the AHs and the matter disposed of as duly
executed.
6. In the first instance, it is worth noticing that the previous
Counsel Mr. Manish Kumar Jain, who was engaged by the Applicants,
received the File from the Siliguri Office of the Applicants on 03-12-
2023 along with security deposit for a sum of ₹ 25,000/- (Rupees
twenty five thousand) only, and deposited it before the Learned MACT
on 21-12-2023. Thereafter, the Learned Counsel failed to file an Appeal
for the next ten months' and the File was taken back from him on 16-
10-2024. The Memo of Appeal was prepared on 21-10-2024 by the new
Counsel engaged by the Applicants. Indeed, the entire fault has been
foisted on Mr. Manish Kumar Jain, Learned Counsel, however the
Applicants have failed to establish why they continued to remain a mute
spectator when the Appeal was not filed by him for more than ten
months.
(i) The challenge in the instant case is to the compensation of
₹ 23,62,843/- (Rupees twenty three lakhs, sixty two thousand, eight
hundred and forty three) only, granted to the Respondents No.1 to 6
herein, despite the alleged violation of the terms of the insurance policy
i.e., the driver was alleged to be driving the vehicle in an inebriated
condition. Indubitably, before the Learned MACT no evidence
whatsoever was furnished by the Applicants to establish that the driver
was inebriated.
Court No.2
HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM
Record of Proceedings
(ii) Considering the entirety of the facts and circumstances
placed before this Court, it is apparent that the Applicants also took
about three weeks only to obtain a copy of the impugned Judgment. No
reason has been advanced for this delay. It is settled law that when
limitation has been allowed to expire without the Appeal being filed and
the delay is sought to be condoned, the delay must be traced to a cause
arising "within" the period of limitation.
(iii) In Ajit Singh Thakur Singh and Another vs. State of Gujarat1, the
Supreme Court while considering a Petition in which the High Court had
condoned the delay in filing the Appeal, it was brought to light that
initially the State Government took the decision not to file an Appeal
and it allowed the period of Appeal to lapse. Subsequently, it was filed
three months after the limitation had expired. The Supreme Court inter
alia observed as follows;
"6. ........................................ Now, it is true that a party
is entitled to wait until the last day of limitation for filing an
appeal. But when it allows limitation to expire and pleads
sufficient cause for not filing the appeal earlier, the
sufficient cause must establish that because of some
event or circumstance arising before limitation expired it
was not possible to file the appeal within time. No event
or circumstance arising after the expiry of limitation can
constitute such sufficient cause. There may be events or
circumstances subsequent to the expiry of limitation which
may further delay the filing of the appeal. But that the
limitation has been allowed to expire without the appeal
being filed must be traced to a cause arising within the
period of limitation. In the present case, there was no such
cause, and the High Court erred in condoning the delay."
(emphasis supplied)
(iv) The same would hold true in the instant matter, the
Applicants have failed to explain the delay arising within the period of
limitation, commencing from the delayed obtainment of the impugned
Judgment. The File after being sent to office after office of their
Company was returned to the Siliguri Office on 15-11-2023 and handed
over to the conducting Counsel on 03-12-2023, much after the period of
(1981) 1 SCC 495
Court No.2
HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM
Record of Proceedings
limitation of ninety days', which admittedly expired on 19-11-2023.
The application is devoid of reasons for this delay, apart from which,
even if this delay was to be condoned, there is no explanation as to why
the Applicants took no steps before the Executing Tribunal. Be that as
it may, the entire exercise for filing this application appears to be with
the concerted intention of thwarting the Respondents No.1 to 6 from
utilising the award granted by the Learned MACT which has already
been paid to them in its entirety on 21-11-2024 and the matter
disposed of.
(v) As seen from the orders of the Learned MACT when the
execution proceedings were initiated, there was no prayer by the JDs
for keeping the proceedings in abeyance.
7. Learned Counsel for the Applicants on enquiry by this Court
was unable to assist this Court about the date on which the Appeal was
filed before the High Court and was reported to be in defects.
(i) Ofcourse in this thread, it is worth remarking that the
Learned MACT ordered the attachment, despite the Learned Counsel for
the JDs informing that an Appeal had been filed before this Court. The
conduct of the Tribunal cannot be lauded, as time and again this Court
has observed that, when the Trial Court/Tribunal is informed by any
party that they have approached the High Court, the Court/Tribunal is
expected to stay its hands from passing any effective orders as a matter
of judicial propriety. The Learned MACT failed to take such a step.
(ii) Nevertheless, for the foregoing reasons, I am of the view
that the delay is inordinate and unexplained with satisfactory cause. I
am thus not inclined to exercise the discretion vested in this Court to
condone the delay. Petition is accordingly rejected and dismissed.
8. I.A. No.01 of 2024 stands disposed of accordingly.
Court No.2
HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM
Record of Proceedings
9. Copy of this Order be forwarded to all the Learned MACTs of
the State for information.
Judge
29.04.2025
sdl
