Delhi High Court - Orders
National Insurance Co Ltd vs Pooja & Ors on 1 September, 2022
Author: Rajnish Bhatnagar
Bench: Rajnish Bhatnagar
$~159
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ MAC.APP. 261/2022
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Manu Luv Shahila, Advocate
(through video-conferencing)
versus
POOJA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Manish Maini, Advocate for R-1
to R-4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNISH BHATNAGAR
ORDER
% 01.09.2022 CM APPL. 38234/2022 (condonation of delay) By way of this application, the appellant is seeking condonation of delay of 152 days in filing the present appeal.
It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that owing to the internal decision, the present appeal could not be filed within time and delay in filing the appeal was neither intentional nor malafide.
On the other hand, it is submitted by the counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 4 that no plausible ground has been mentioned in the application seeking condonation of delay, however, he further submitted that he has no objection in case the delay is condoned subject to costs.
Having heard the counsel for the appellant, counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 4, and perusing the application, I find that the application is bereft of details, however, keeping in view the no objection of the counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 4, the delay is condoned subject to costs of Rs.10,000/-
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KAMAL KANT MENDIRATTA Signing Date:09.09.2022 14:44:13to be paid to counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 4.
With these observations, the application stands disposed of. MAC.APP. 261/2022 and CM APPL. 38235/2022 (stay) The appellant has preferred the present appeal with the following prayers:-
"1. ADMIT this Appeal;
2. SET ASIDE the Impugned Order of the Learned Tribunal dated 3l -03-2022, passed by Ms. Niyay Bindu, P.O. MACT Dwarka, New Delhi in MACT No. 581/ 2016, in view of the Grounds of Appeal raised hereinabove;
3. AWARD any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of this case.
It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is erroneous and instead of Rs.14,59,350/-, the compensation should have been Rs.6,54,000/- as per the decision of this Court in Chetan Malhotra Vs. Lala Ram and Ors., MAC APP 554/2010 (decided on 13.05.2016); or Rs.5,50,000/- as per the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kurvan Ansari Vs. Shyam Kishore Murmu and Anr., CA No.6902/2021 (decided on 16.11.2021).
Issue notice. Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 4 appears on advance notice, and accepts notice. He seeks time to file reply/response. Let the same be filed within four weeks with an advance copy to the counsel for the appellant.
Notice to respondent no. 5 be dispensed with as it is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that no relief is claimed against respondent no.5.
Counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1 to 4 submitted that the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KAMAL KANT MENDIRATTA Signing Date:09.09.2022 14:44:13 amount of Rs.6,54,000/- plus interest as awarded by the Tribunal may be released to the respondent nos. 1 to 4.
Subject to deposit of the entire awarded amount along with interest with the Tribunal within four weeks from today, the impugned Award shall remain stayed. However, a sum of Rs.6,54,000/- along with interest is directed to be released to respondent nos. 1 to 4 as per the scheme of the Award.
List on 8th February, 2023.
RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J SEPTEMBER 1, 2022/ib Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KAMAL KANT MENDIRATTA Signing Date:09.09.2022 14:44:13