Unknown vs Sheela Devi And Others
2026 Latest Caselaw 93 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Unknown vs Sheela Devi And Others on 5 January, 2026

Author: Pankaj Purohit

Bench: Pankaj Purohit

                                                         2026:UHC:132
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
           Writ Petition (M/S) No.3727 of 2025
                       05th January, 2026

United India Insurance Company                     ...........Petitioner

                               Versus

Sheela Devi and others                         ..........Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Naresh Pant, Advocate for the petitioner, through video
conferencing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

Defects as pointed out by the Registry have been overruled by this Court.

2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-Insurance Company under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the orders dated 08.10.2025 and 19.11.2025 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (M.A.C.T.), Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar, in M.A.C.P. No.84 of 2022 (Misc. Case No.19 of 2014, Sheela Devi vs. Suraj Pal & others). By the said orders, the delay in filing the restoration application was condoned on payment of cost of Rs.5,000/-, the matter was listed for disposal of the restoration application, and vide judgment and order dated 19.11.2025, after detailed discussion, the restoration application was allowed and M.A.C.P. Case No.84 of 2022, Sheela Devi vs. Suraj Pal & others, was restored to its original number.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Insurance Company contended that M.A.C.P. Case No.84 of 2022 was dismissed for default on 29.09.2022. The restoration application was filed on 14.11.2024, after a considerable

2026:UHC:132 delay of more than two years, along with an application for condonation of delay. Vide order dated 19.11.2025, the delay was condoned and, subsequently, the M.A.C.P. Case No.84 of 2022 was restored to its original number.

4. It is vehemently argued by learned counsel for the petitioner-Insurance Company that no sufficient cause was assigned by the petitioner/applicant for condonation of the delay of two years, which was not properly explained. It is further contended that the learned M.A.C.T., in a cursory manner, decided the said application, condoned the delay, and subsequently restored M.A.C.P. Case No.84 of 2022 to its original number.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner-Insurance Company and having gone through the judgments and orders impugned passed by the learned Claims Tribunal, this Court is of the view that motor accident claims arise out of a beneficial piece of legislation and, therefore, deserve to be construed liberally while granting relief to victims of motor accidents.

6. In view of the above, this Court finds no illegality whatsoever in the orders passed by the learned Claims Tribunal in allowing the delay condonation application and subsequently, the restoration application by restoring the MACT case to its original number. Accordingly, no interference is warranted, and the writ petition is dismissed in-limine.

7. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 05.01.2026 SK