Dismissed¶20

The Oriental Ins Co. Ltd. v. Bapi Das and Ors.

Calcutta HC3 Apr 2025FMAT (WC)/6/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Bapi Das & Ors.; FMAT (WC) 6 of 2025 (with CAN 1 of 2025 and CAN 2 of 2025); decided 03.04.2025; bench: Soumen Sen, J. and Smita Das De, J. Insurer's appeal against a compensation award: 58-day filing delay condoned; appeal dismissed for absence of any substantial question of law; vehicle's insurance undisputed; ownership by opposite party no.1 unchallenged and claimant's ownership averment undenied; exhibits including police reports marked without objection; respondent no.1 not represented despite service; no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 58 days condoned and condonation application allowed and disposed of (CAN 1 of 2025); appeal FMAT (WC) 6 of 2025 and connected application (CAN 2 of 2025) dismissed; no order as to costs. ¶20

The Oriental Ins Co. Ltd. Vs Bapi Das and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Delay of 58 days condoned and condonation application allowed and disposed of (CAN 1 of 2025); appeal FMAT (WC) 6 of 2025 and connected application (CAN 2 of 2025) dismissed; no order as to costs.

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 58 days in filing the memorandum of appeal should be condoned (CAN 1 of 2025). +1 more

¶8

Court's answer

On consideration of the evidence, the Court found that no substantial question of law is involved in the appeal; accordingly, the appeal and the connected application are dismissed.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

The Court was satisfied with the explanation for the delay; the delay of 58 days in filing the appeal is condoned, and the condonation application (CAN 1 of 2025) is allowed and disposed of.

¶9

Key takeaways

Supporting findings bearing on admission: the accident vehicle was insured with the appellant-insurer (undisputed), ownership lay with opposite party no.1 and was not under challenge, exhibits including police reports were marked without objection, opposite party no.1 failed to appear despite service, and the claimant's averment of ownership went undenied — leaving no substantial question of law.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Appeal (FMAT (WC)) by The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. against a compensation award: the 58-day delay in filing the memorandum of appeal was condoned and the condonation application allowed and disposed of. On the question of admission, the Court found no substantial question of law: P.W-1's evidence of the accident and injuries stood with exhibits (including police reports) marked without objection; insurance of the accident vehicle was undisputed; exhibit P3 showed Smt. Rita Adhikary and Abhishek Adhikary as owners at the time of the accident and ownership was not under challenge; opposite party no.1 did not appear despite service while the statement of claim averring their ownership went undenied. The appeal and the connected application were dismissed, with no order as to costs.

¶1

03.04.2025 Sl No.22 Court No.8 (gc)

¶2

FMAT (WC) 6 of 2025 CAN 1 of 2025 CAN 2 of 2025

¶3

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Bapi Das & Ors.

¶4

Mr. Ananda Gopal Mukherjee

¶5

…for the Appellant.

¶6

Re: CAN 1 of 2025

¶7

In spite of service, the respondent no.1 is not represented.

¶8

There is a delay of 58 days in filing the memorandum of appeal.

¶9

We are satisfied with the explanation offered for not being able to the file the appeal within the period of limitation. The delay of 58 days is condoned.

¶10

Accordingly, the application for condonation

¶11

of delay is allowed and disposed of.

¶12

Re: FMAT (WC) 6 of 2025 CAN 2 of 2025

¶13

We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant.

¶14

The appeal can be admitted provided there is a substantial question of law involved. In the

¶15

instant case, we find from the evidence that the P.W-1 has produced the evidence of the

¶16

¶17

accident and the injury sustained by him and the exhibits including the police reports were marked as exhibits without any objection. It is not in dispute that the vehicle that had met with the accident was insured with the insurance company. It further reveals from the exhibit- P3 that opposite party no.1, namely, Smt. Rita Adhikary and Abhishek Adhikary, are the subsequent owners of the vehicle and at the time of accident they were the owners. The ownership of the vehicle was not under challenge. The opposite party no.1, in spite of service, had failed to appear and contest the proceeding. The

¶18

applicant/claimant can only establish so much of the facts as are within his capacity. In the statement of claim, he has clearly averred that the opposite party no.1 are the owners of the vehicle. There is no denial to this fact. Consideration of the evidence both oral and documentary and an award was passed, we do not find any substantial question of law is involved in this appeal.

¶19

¶20

Accordingly, the appeal and the connected application are dismissed.

¶21