Madras High Court
United India Insurance Company Ltd., ... vs Pravin Paul And Anr. on 17 November, 1992
Equivalent citations: (1993)2MLJ174
ORDER
1. This petition is filed to condone the delay of 131 days in filing the civil miscellaneous appeal before this Court, against the award and decree dated 4.12.1991 in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 50 of 1988 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (I Additional District Judge), Pondicherry.
2. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition by the Deputy Manager of the petitioner (Insurance company) it is averred that the application for obtaining certified copies of the judgment and decree was made on 15.12.1991 without any delay and the copies were made ready on 16.3.1992. It is further submitted that based on the endorsements made on the certified copies of the judgment and decree, the above civil miscellaneous appeal ought to have been filed within 90 days from 16.3.1992, that is, on or before 13.6.1992. A delay of 131 days has occurred in preferring the appeal. It is further submitted that the relevant papers relating to the O.P. and the certified copies of the judgment and decree were forwarded to the Regional Office at Madras for scrutiny by the legal department of the petitioner-Insurance Company, to decide on the question of advisability of filing an appeal. The Managers concerned who had to take a decision on the matter and advise the Divisional Office were not readily available as they were deputed to attend certain policy matters of importance. As such, a decision could not be taken for filing an appeal within the period of limitation. It is further submitted that in a Government undertaking like the petitioner, the administrative delay cannot be avoided for more reasons than one.
3. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, while denying the above averments, it is stated that the respondent claimed Rs. 9,50,000 but he had restricted his claim to Rs. 5,00,000 due to heavy expenditure towards stamp duty. The tribunal has rightly awarded Rs. 5,00,000 as he was a Computer Engineer (Hardware), having studied M.Sc. (Physics) at Madras Christian College and M.Sc.(Engineering) at the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore. Due to the accident, he is totally disabled and unable to do any work. He has lost his entire future due to the said accident and throughout his life, he is a dependant and there are three attendants looking after his daily routine. Even to-day there is no bowel control or urine control. He further submitted that for movements, his attendants should lift him and put him on the wheel chair and his wheel chair should be attended upon by his attendants for movement as he was unable to even operate the wheel chair. It is further submitted that the delay in filing the appeal is not properly explained by the petitioner as every day's delay has to be explained in detail. Further, no valid reason has been given by the petitioner to condone the delay of 131 days. The allegations contained in the affidavit are specifically denied. According to him, there is no reason for condoning the delay and if the delay is condoned, he will be put to great hardship and monetary loss. Hence he prayed for dismissal of the petition.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an Insurance company, that it is a Government undertaking, that it is usual that such administrative delay would occur and the delay has to be condoned. He would submit that the delay has occurred only on account of administrative reasons and that unless the delay is condoned, the petitioner would be put to very great hardship. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondent would submit that this is a case where there is inordinate and unexplained delay, that no reason has been given except stating that it is due to administrative delay and that it cannot be avoided and that it cannot be a valid reason for condoning the delay. He submitted that in the circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that the respondent, who is a Computer Engineer, is totally disabled and unable to do any work due to the accident, the court should not exercise its discretion in favour of the petitioner and allow the petition. The learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of his contentions drew OUT attention to the decision reported in Collector of Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji , wherein the apex court held as follows:
The doctrine of equality before law demands that all litigants including the State as Litigant, are accorded the same treatment and the law is administered in an even handed manner. There is no warrant for according a step-motherly treatment when the State is the applicant praying for condonation of delay. In fact on account of an impersonal machinery and the inherited bureaucratic methodology imbued with the note-making, file 'pushing, and passing on the buck ethos, delay on the part of the State is less difficult to understand though more difficult to approve. In any event, the State which represents the collective cause of the community, does not deserve a litigant non-grata status. So also the approach of the courts must be to do even handed justice on merits in preference to the approach which scuttles a decision on merits."
"The dismissal of the appeal filed by the State Govt. against the decision substantially enhancing compensation for the land acquired and which also raised important questions as regards principles of valuation, as time barred being 4 days beyond time, was not proper.
Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that in the above quoted decision the delay is only four days. He also contended that the said decision is not applicable to the facts of this case as the said decision was under the Land Acquisition Act. in G. Ramegowda v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore , it has been held:
There is, it is true, no general principle saving the party from all mistakes of its counsel. If there is negligence, deliberate or gross inaction or lack of bona fides on the part of the party or its counsel there is no reason why the opposite side should be exposed to a time-barred appeal. Each case will have to be considered on the particularities of its own special facts. However, the expression 'sufficient cause' in Section 5 must receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice and generally delays in preferring appeals are required to be considered in the interest of justice where no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides is imputable to the party seeking condonation of the delay.
"The law of limitation is, no doubt, the same for a private citizen as for Governmental authorities. Government, like any other litigant must take responsibility for the acts or omissions of its officers. But, a somewhat different complexion is imparted to the matter where Government makes out a case where public interest was shown to have suffered owing to acts of fraud or bad faith on the part of its officers or agents and where the officers were clearly at cross-purposes with it." It is to be noted that even in that case it was pointed out that each case will have to be considered on the particulars of its own special facts. We find every force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent that the above decisions are not applicable to the facts of this case.
5. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent relied on the decision in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Yashwant Gajanan Joshi , wherein the Apex Court dismissed the special leave petition which is barred by limitation by 90 days, on the ground that no satisfactory evidence for the delay has been given by the Union of India. In this connection, the learned Counsel for the respondent also relied on the decision in State v. Phajadharai Rai , wherein it has been held:
If the courts were to accept the mere procedure of the working in Government offices as sufficient cause for the delay in filing of the appeal, then the delay would have to be condoned in almost every case and the period of limitation prescribed for filing of the appeal would for the State Government become a misnomer.
The delay in filing the appeal by the Government in that case was not condoned. Thus it is seen that each case will have to be considered on the particularities of its own special facts.
6. In the instant case, the judgment was delivered by the tribunal on 4.12.1991. The application for obtaining the judgment and decree was made on 15.12.1991. There was delay of 11 days in making the application. It is seen that the copies were made ready on 16.3.1992. The appeal was filed on 23.10.1992. There is a delay of 131 days in filing the appeal. Even though the certified copies of judgment and decree were received on 16.3.1992, what all is stated in the affidavit in support of the petition is that the certified copies of judgment and decree were sent to the Regional Office at Madras for scrutiny by the legal department to decide on the question of advisability of filing an appeal. The Managers concerned who had to take a decision in the matter and advise the Divisional office were not readily available as they were deputed to attend to certain policy matters of importance. Lastly it is stated that in Government undertaking like the petitioner, the administrative delay cannot be avoided for more reasons than one. In our view this is not a sufficient cause for condoning the delay. The petitioner has not chosen to give any sufficient cause for the delay of 131 days. The averment that the administrative delay cannot be avoided in Government undertaking for more reasons than one cannot be accepted and it is not a valid reason to condone the delay. The petitioner has failed to come forward as to how the delay has occurred. He must give fuller details with dates as to when the papers were sent to the Regional Office, when the managers concerned were deputed to attend policy matters of importance, when they advised the petitioner to file appeal and why such delay has occurred. The affidavit is bereft of details. It is well established that every day's delay has to be explained properly and there must be reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay. In this case except the averment that the administrative delay cannot be avoided, there is no acceptable reason for the delay, with all particulars. We are not happy with the reasoning given in para 5 of the affidavit wherein it is stated, "I most respectfully submit in a Government Undertaking like the petitioner administrative delay cannot be avoided for more reasons than one." This is not a valid and proper explanation for the delay. The Government undertaking cannot be equated with the Government and they are expected to give details with regard to the delay. We cannot condone the delay if it is simply stated, "administrative delay". Hence, we are of the view that this is a case where the petitioner has not satisfactorily explained the delay, which is inordinate, in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.