Sikkim High Court
The Branch Manager National Insurance ... vs Mrs. Srijana Chettri 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./91/2024/(Filing No.)
THE BRANCH MANAGER, APPLICANT
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
VERSUS
MRS. SRIJANA CHETTRI AND OTHERS RESPONDENTS
Date: 29.04.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI MADAN RAI, JUDGE
For Applicant Ms. Babita Kumari, Advocate.
For Respondents
R-1 & R-2 Mr. Tarun Choudhary, Advocate (through VC).
R-3 Mr. Rahul Rathi, Advocate.
Ms. Lidya Pradhan, Advocate.
ORDER (ORAL)
1. I.A. No.01 of 2024, is an application under Section 173(1)
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, filed by the Applicant, seeking
condonation of 266 days' delay, in filing the Appeal.
2. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that, the
impugned Judgment was pronounced on 30-09-2023. The copy of the
Judgment was applied for by the Applicant on 01-10-2023, and the copy
made available on 10-10-2023. The Appeal ought to have been filed on
08-01-2024, but came to be filed only on 23-08-2024, resulting in the
delay of 266 days'. Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the
delay occurred on account of the File movement that took place from
the Branch Office, at Gangtok, to the Divisional Office, at Siliguri and
thereafter to the Regional Office, at Kolkata and made its way back to
the Branch Office, at Gangtok, after the Regional Office, at Kolkata,
directed the Applicant to file the Appeal. It is contended by Learned
Counsel, that apart from the grounds furnished for the delay, the
instant case is fit to be heard on merits, the issue being, whether the
legal heirs of the owner-cum-driver of the vehicle in accident is entitled
Court No.2
HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM
Record of Proceedings
to the compensation, over and above the Personal Accident Claim as per
the Insurance Policy. That, the delay being unintentional and bona fide,
may be condoned.
3. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.3, the owner of the
vehicle, opposed the Petition for delay, on grounds that, the I.A. supra,
does not give details of the File movement and the dates on which the
File went from one office to the next. That, a general application devoid
of details for delay ought not to be considered by this Court while
exercising its discretion for condoning the delay. That, in two similar
matters involving the same Applicant, the delay application lacking
details was rejected by this Court. Learned Counsel for the Respondent
No.3 drew the attention of this Court to the decision in The Branch
Manager, National Insurance Company Limited vs. Mr. Om Prakash Chettri
and Others and The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited
vs. Krishna Bahadur Chettri and Others where the delay applications were
rejected.
4. Learned Counsel for the Respondents No.1 and 2 objected
to the Petition on the same grounds.
5. Having heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused
the I.A. supra, it is clear that the application fails to explain the delay
that occurred on a day to day basis. It is also noticed that this Court in
Mr. Om Prakash Chettri (supra) and Krishna Bahadur Chettri (supra) where
the same Applicant had sought for condonation of 66 days' delay and 64
days' delay respectively, this Court was loathe to grant condonation on
grounds that "sufficient cause" had not been put forth by the Applicant.
The delay in both matters was sought to be explained by a blanket
I.A. No.01 of 2016 in MAC App. No.08 of 2016, decided by this High Court, on 19-11-2016.
I.A. No.01 of 2018 in MAC App. No.07 of 2018, decided by this High Court, on 09-10-2018.
Court No.2
HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM
Record of Proceedings
ground, i.e., administrative delays sans details. The grounds in the
instant Petition are also the same i.e., administrative delays, which
resulted from the movement of File from one office to the next. Indeed,
I am aware that the Court cannot be pedantic while considering an
application for condoning the delay as when technicality and substantial
justice are pitted against each other, the latter ought to be given
preference. I am conscious that in an unwieldy or large organisation
the File movement is imperative and necessary orders, sanctions, have
to be obtained from the highest authority in the chain of command of
the organisation, before any decision can be taken. That is all very
well. Nonetheless, it does not preclude the Applicant from giving
details of the dates on which the File was forwarded from one office to
the next and details of its return to various office and how the delay
was bona fide on account of the administrative works involved. As held
by this Court in Mr. Om Prakash Chettri (supra) that;
"7. ..... that although delay can be condoned but the
party concerned has to establish that there has been no
gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides
imputable to it. The Law of Limitation is substantive Law
and has definite consequence on the right and obligation of
the parties. The principles laid down in Law of Limitation
have to be adhered to. At the same time, the Courts are
clothed with powers to condone the delay provided
"sufficient cause" is put forth for availing the remedy within
the stipulated time. The grounds put forth by Appellant are
merely administrative delays without furnishing the
particulars thereof."
(i) In Krishna Bahadur Chettri (supra) also, this Court observed
that there has to be application of mind while filing Petitions for
condonation of delay. Reference therein was made to Esha
Bhattacharjee vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and
Others which observed that;
(2013) 12 SCC 649
Court No.2
HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM
Record of Proceedings
"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.
.............................................................................................................
22.4. (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."
These precautions put forth by the Supreme Court had clearly
been reiterated by this Court by extracting the relevant Paragraphs,
i.e., those extracted supra.
(ii) Despite the caution given to the Applicant in the said
Petitions, the same Applicant today also is before this Court having paid
no heed to the previous orders and the Applicant has by turning a blind
eye to the pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this
Court failed to correct itself and thereby explain the delay with sufficient
cause.
(iii) In Basawaraj and Another vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer4,
reference was made to the decision in Arjun Singh vs. Mohindra Kumar and
Others wherein the Supreme Court held as follows;
"10. In Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar [AIR 1964 SC 993] this
Court explained the difference between a "good cause" and a
"sufficient cause" and observed that every "sufficient cause" is a
good cause and vice versa. However, if any difference exists it
can only be that the requirement of good cause is complied with
on a lesser degree of proof than that of "sufficient cause".
11. The expression "sufficient cause" should be given a
liberal interpretation to ensure that substantial justice is done,
but only so long as negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides
cannot be imputed to the party concerned, whether or not
sufficient cause has been furnished, can be decided on the facts
of a particular case and no straitjacket formula is possible.
(Vide Madanlal v. Shyamlal [(2002) 1 SCC 535 : AIR 2002 SC 100] and Ram
Nath Sao v. Gobardhan Sao [(2002) 3 SCC 195 : AIR 2002 SC 1201].)"
Neither good cause nor sufficient cause as propounded above has
been advanced by the Applicant.
(2013) 14 SCC 81
AIR 1964 SCC 993
Court No.2
HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM
Record of Proceedings
6. On careful consideration of the grounds canvassed in the
instant matter, it is apparent that the Applicant has taken it for granted
that this Court would, on the anvil of the question of merit, condone the
delay and take up the matter for consideration, which is an erroneous
preconceived notion. The delay not having been explained with
sufficient cause is liable to be and is accordingly rejected and dismissed.
7. I.A. No.01 of 2024 stands disposed of accordingly.
8. Copy of this Order be forwarded to the Learned MACT for
information.
Judge
29.04.2025
sdl
