Madhya Pradesh High Court
Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. ... vs Shanti Singh on 5 April, 2024
1
In The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
At Jabalpur
Before
Hon'ble Shri Justice Duppala Venkata Ramana
On The 5th Of April, 2024
MISC. APPEAL No. 255 of 2024
Between:-
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Its
Legal Manager Having Regional Office At 5th Floor -
Maple High Street, Opposite Ashima Mall, Hoshangabad
Road Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh)
.....Appellant
(By Shri Aditya Narayan Sharma - Advocate)
And
1. Shanti Singh W/O Ajay Singh, Aged About 33 Years,
R/O Village Chap P.S. Sohagpur District Shahdol
Presently Manjholi Tehsil Manjholi District Sidhi
(Madhya Pradesh)
2. Ashish Kumar Singh S/O Ajay Singh, Aged About 10
Years, Occupation: Minor Through Mother And
Natural Guardian Shanti Singh W/O Ajay Singh Age 33
R/O Village Chap P.S. Sohagpur District Shahdol
Presently Manjholi Tehsil Manjholi District Sidhi
(Madhya Pradesh)
3. Sonelal Patel S/O Ram Sorith Patel, Aged About 45
Years, R/O Ward No 6 Bhogiya Tehsil Beohari District
Shahdol Presenty Village Paad Manjholi Tehsil
Manjholi District Sidhi (Madhya Pradesh)
.....Respondents
2
This appeal coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
The following issues arise for consideration:-
(i) Whether the appellant/insurance company has shown sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 406 days in filing this appeal before this Court ?
(ii) Depending on the outcome of the above issue this Court considered are ?
(iii) Whether the appellant/insurance company has made out a case to consider the application for condonation of delay of 406 days ?
(2) The brief facts are that the present appeal filed by the appellant/insurance company against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated 25.08.2022, with delay of 406 days filed IA No.5588/2024 for condonation of delay.
(3) Counsel for the appellant/insurance company has stated that the claimants/respondent no.1 to 3 filed claim petition before the learned Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.1,74,90,000/- and the learned Tribunal awarded the compensation Rs.57,70,460/- against the award passed by the learned Tribunal, the appellant/insurance company filed this appeal with delay of 406 days. He has further stated that after passing the award by the Tribunal, the copy of the award sent to the Head Office of the Insurance Company at Mumbai from where the payment request and process of taking approval is carried out. Thereafter, the receipt of cheques for the payment of statutory deposit amount, the file was sent back to the Regional Office at Bhopal for appointment of an advocate for filing the appeal. In the entire process of taking approval and dispatch of files and cheques and then receipt 3 of the statutory deposit, the present appeal could not have been filed within limitation period. Hence, he pray for condone the delay of 406 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal.
(4) Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company submitted arguments on the same set of facts which were pleaded in the petition. (5) This Court has considered the submissions made. Normally a very lenient view is being taken in the matters of this nature, particularly, where the appeals filed by the appellant/insurance company against the award passed by the learned Tribunal but the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held that sufficient cause should be shown and that the word 'sufficient cause' should receive a liberal construction, so as to advance substantial justice. (6) In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, I am posing a question why the delay has to be condoned mechanically merely because the entire process of taking approval, dispatch files and then the receipt of statutory deposit and he could not file the appeal in time, is not at all proper explanation. Though I am conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice but I am of the considered view that in the facts and circumstances, the appellant cannot take advantage of his own negligence.
(7) A decision reported in the case of Chief Post Master & Ors vs Living Media India Ltd.& Anr1, wherein it is held as under:-
"After incorporating the above explanation, this Court refused to condone the delay by observing thus: "3. .......Having regard to the law of limitation which binds everybody, we cannot find any way of granting relief. It is true that Government should not be treated as any other private litigant as, indeed, in the case of the former the
1. AIR 2012 SC 1506 4 decisions to present and prosecute appeals are not individual but are institutional decisions necessarily bogged down by the proverbial red-tape. But there are limits to this also. Even with all this latitude, the explanation offered for the delay in this case merely serves to aggravate the attitude of indifference of the Revenue in protecting its common interests. The affidavit is again one of the stereotyped affidavits making it susceptible to the criticism that the Revenue does not seem to attach any importance to the need for promptitude even where it affects its own interest."
(8) Another decision in the case of Government of Maharashtra (Water Resources Department) Represented by Executive Engineer vs. Borse Brothers Engineers & contractors Private Ltd. 2, para 65 and 66 are as under:-
"65. Apart from this, there is a long delay of 131 days beyond the 60-day period provided for filing an appeal under Section 13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act. There is no explanation worth the name contained in the condonation of delay application, beyond the usual file- pushing and administrative exigency. This appeal is therefore dismissed.
66. In the civil appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 15278 of 2020, the impugned judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dated 27-1-2020 [M.P. Poorv Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd. v. Swastik Wires, 2020 SCC OnLine MP 3003] relies upon Consolidated Engg. [Consolidated Engg. Enterprises v. Irrigation Deptt., (2008) 7 SCC 169] and thereby states that the judgment of this Court in N.V. International [N.V. International v. State of Assam, (2020) 2 SCC 109 : (2020) 1 SCC (Civ) 275] would not apply. The judgment of the High Court is wholly incorrect inasmuch as Consolidated Engg. [Consolidated Engg. Enterprises v. Irrigation Deptt., (2008) 7 SCC 169] was a judgment which applied the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act and had nothing to do with the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.N.V. International [N.V. International v. State of Assam, (2020) 2 SCC 109 : (2020) 1 SCC (Civ) 275] was a direct judgment which applied the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation
2. 2021 6 SCC 460 5 Act and then held that no condonation of delay could take place beyond 120 days. The High Court was bound to follow N.V. International [N.V. International v. State of Assam, (2020) 2 SCC 109 : (2020) 1 SCC (Civ) 275] , as on the date of the judgment of the High Court, N.V. International [N.V. International v. State of Assam, (2020) 2 SCC 109 : (2020) 1 SCC (Civ) 275] was a judgment of the two learned Judges of the Supreme Court binding upon the High Court by virtue of Article 141 of the Constitution. On this score, the impugned judgment of the High Court deserves to be set aside." (9) By following the above judgments read together, the delay ultimately cannot be condoned. The affidavit filed by the Manager of Insurance Company suffers from lack of material particulars. The affidavit filed in support of the submissions of learned counsel but there is a huge delay of 406 days in filing the appeal and the facts of this case also show that there was no sufficient cause whatsoever to condone such a long delay. (10) Coming back to the Motor Vehicles Act, the legislative intent is to provide appropriate compensation for the victims and to protect their substantive rights.
(11). If the present affidavit is examined against the backdrop of the case, law and facts including Postmaster General's case it is a clear that the affidavits suffers from a lack of material particulars. The mere fact that because of entire process of taking approval, dispatch files and then the receipt of statutory deposit, the filing of the present appeal has been delayed. If paragraph-2 to 4 of the affidavit are viewed in contra distinction to the affidavit reproduced by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in para-20 of the judgment of Postmaster General. It is clear that there is no clarity nor is there any chronology. Even the chronology of the dates mentioned in the case of Postmaster General in para-20 was held to be insufficient by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
6(12) Under these circumstances, it is clear that there is absolutely no clarity and there is no chronology of delay in filing this appeal, for important note nothing is stated to cause delay except from the entire process of taking approval, dispatch files and then the receipt of statutory deposit and that only ground cannot be considered. Therefore, whenever be the inherent merits of the case, in view of the above judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that delay is insufficiently explained, this Court has to dismiss the application for condonation of delay.
(13). Accordingly, I.A.No.5588/2024 is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is rejected. This Court places on record its appreciation for the manner in which the counsel for the appellant argued the matter and tried to substantiate the unsubstantiable and tried to justify is unjustifiable. No costs. (14). Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand dismissed.
DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA,J vibha