[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Sikkim High Court

The Branch Manager, Cholamandalam Ms ... vs Mina Kumari Pradhan And Ors on 15 April, 2026

Author: Meenakshi Madan Rai

Bench: Meenakshi Madan Rai

THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM : GANGTOK
(Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SINGLE BENCH : THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI MADAN RAI, JUDGE
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I.A. No.01 of 2025 in MAC App. No. 01 of 2026
Applicants/Appellants : The Branch Manager,
Cholamandalam MS General Insurance
Company Limited and Another
versus
Respondents : Mina Kumari Pradhan and Others
Appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance
Mr. Nirankush Dahal, Advocate for the Appellants.
Ms. Lidya Pradhan, Advocate for the Respondents No.1, 2 and 3.
None present for the Respondents No.4 and 5.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of hearing : 15-04-2026
Date of pronouncement : 15-04-2026
Order uploaded : 16-04-2026

ORDER (ORAL)

Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.

1. The Applicants/Appellants have filed an application under

Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter, the "MV

Act"), seeking condonation of 280 days‟ delay in filing the instant

Appeal.

2. Learned Counsel for the Appellants submits that, the

Judgment was pronounced on 30-11-2023, by the Learned Motor

Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gangtok, Sikkim (hereinafter, the

"MACT"), in MACT Case No.02 of 2021 (Mina Kumari Pradhan and

Others vs. The Branch Manager, Cholamandalam MS General Insurance

Company and Others). That, although the Appeal ought to have been

filed within 90 days‟ of the pronouncement of the Judgment, however

it was filed on 05-12-2024. Consequently, a delay of 280 days‟ has

arisen in filing the Appeal. Enumerating the grounds for the delay,

Learned Counsel submitted that in the first instance the Appellants

The Branch Manager, Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited and Another vs. Mina Kumari Pradhan and Others

were not informed about the pronouncement of the impugned

Judgment and the Award, by the Counsel who conducted the matter

before the Learned MACT. The Appellants therefore came to learn of

it only on 14-10-2024, pursuant to which they obtained the Judgment

online. It was forwarded to the Branch Office situated at Siliguri,

West Bengal, on 18-04-2024. A certified copy of the Judgment was

sought on 24-10-2024 and was „obtained‟ on 28-10-2024. The File

was then forwarded to the Legal Department of the Appellants

seeking opinion on 22-10-2024 which opined on 05-11-2024 that the

Appeal ought to be filed. Pursuant thereto, the File was forwarded to

the Regional Office, Kolkata and ultimately received by the

conducting Counsel on 18-11-2024 after necessary steps at the

Branch Office at Siliguri. Appeal was prepared and the File returned

to the Branch Office on 25-11-2024 for obtaining signatures and

returned to Counsel on 28-11-2024. The Appeal was thus filed on

05-12-2024. That, there are very good chances of success in the

Appeal as the driver was in an inebriated condition whilst driving the

vehicle which was a commercial vehicle but did not have the requisite

route permit. The delay having been satisfactorily explained it may

be condoned and the Appellants afforded an opportunity to be heard

on the merits.

3. Opposing the arguments of Learned Counsel for

Appellants, Learned Counsel for the Claimants-Respondents No.1, 2

and 3 submitted that the certified copy of the impugned Judgment

was sought rather belatedly by the Appellants only on 24-10-2024

the Judgment having been pronounced on 30-11-2023 by which time

MACT Execution Case No.10 of 2024 (Mina Kumari Pradhan and Others

vs. The Branch Manager, Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company

The Branch Manager, Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited and Another vs. Mina Kumari Pradhan and Others

and Another) was already pending before the Learned MACT. Apart

from the above circumstances, the Counsel for the Appellants was

present during the entire trial and was therefore aware of the

Judgment and Award of the Learned MACT, nullifying the argument

that the Appellants were unaware of the impugned Judgment. The

MACT Execution Case No.10 of 2024 was disposed of on 21-11-2024

and the Claimants-Respondents No.1, 2 and 3 have been paid the

compensation amount of ₹ 9,40,000/- (Rupees nine lakhs and forty

thousand) only, along with interest, by the Appellants-Company in

terms of the impugned Judgment. Hence, the Appeal being belatedly

filed is now infructuous and deserves no consideration. It was also

contended that the no proof of inebriated condition of the driver was

furnished by the Appellants and the necessity for permits of

commercial vehicle as per the Section 66(3)(i) of the MV Act,

mandates that the gross weight of the vehicle should not exceed

3000 kilograms, whereas in the case at hand the weight of the

vehicle in accident was 2620 kilograms, as a result it did not qualify

as a commercial vehicle. The Petition being without merit deserves a

dismissal and in any event the Appellants have no case even on merit

in light of the above mentioned facts.

4. I have given due consideration to the arguments

advanced before me and perused the documents before me. From a

careful consideration thereof, the argument that the conducting

Counsel failed to inform the Appellants-Company of the impugned

Judgment has to be taken with a pinch of salt. In other words, it is

unbelievable. Even if the Counsel failed to inform the Appellants, it is

unfathomable as to why the legal cell of the company chose to

remain silent when they were aware of the matter before the MACT,

The Branch Manager, Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited and Another vs. Mina Kumari Pradhan and Others

having engaged Counsel to defend their case. This argument

deserves to be and is accordingly discarded. It is also apparent from

the submissions that the impugned Judgment was pronounced on 30-

11-2023 and the Appeal was filed on 05-12-2024, long after even the

MACT Execution Case No.10 of 2024 was also disposed of, vide Order

dated 21-11-2024. Admittedly the compensation has already been

paid by the Appellants and received by Claimants-Respondents No.1,

2 and 3. It is evident that the attitude of the Appellants has not only

been callous towards the Claimants-Respondents No.1, 2 and 3 but is

lackadaisical and they deem it their entitlement to approach this

Court as and when they find it convenient to do so despite the lapse

of time with no interest evinced in adhering to the legal provisions.

Their conduct is beset with gross negligence and deliberate inaction

to say the least.

(i) That having been said, the grounds given by the

Appellants is not fortified by sufficient cause to enable this Court to

consider and condone the delay. The delay from the time of

pronouncement of Judgment, obtainment of copy thereof and the

time it took for the Appellants to shuttle the File from once authority

to the next is not substantiated with reasons. It is also evident that

the Appellants have woken up from its slumber only after payment of

compensation amount was made in the Execution case. During the

Execution proceedings the Appellants failed to so much as seek a stay

of the proceedings. Be that as it may, the above remark is being

made as it is revelatory of the conduct of the Appellants. The

Appellants cannot be under the impression that they can approach

this Court belatedly and expect a relief to be granted. The grounds

put forth for the delay do not fall within the ambit of "sufficient

The Branch Manager, Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited and Another vs. Mina Kumari Pradhan and Others

cause" as required by the legal provision invoked. Consequently, the

I.A. No.01 of 2025 stands rejected and disposed of accordingly as

does the Appeal.