Dismissed

Shri Ram General Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Rukhmani Bai

Chhattisgarh HC9 Dec 2016MAC/878/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed an application for condonation of delay and the subsequentMisc. Appeal filed by an insurance company. The appeal, arriving after 686 days, was barred by time as the appellant failed to satisfactorily explain the delay. The appellant's explanation regarding internal Head Office forwarding procedures was found insufficient.

What did the court decide?

Application for condonation of delay dismissed; Appeal dismissed as barred by time.

Shri Ram General Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Chhattisgarh HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

Misc. Appeal (C) No.878 of 2016

¶5

Shri Ram General Assurance Co. Ltd. Branch Office Plot No. 1, 4th Floor Maruti Heights Besides R. K. Mall G. E. Road Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Branch Manager (Insurer Of Truck C G 04 J 2959)

¶6

---- Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

1. Rukhmani Bai W/o Late Pareshwar, Aged About 22 Years Caste Dhobei, R/o Gram Tomar Thana & Tahsil Shakti, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶9

2. Shyam Lal, S/o Sadhu Ram, Aged About 55 Years Caste Dhobei, R/o Gram Tomar Thana & Tahsil Shakti, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶10

3. Moti Bai W/o Shyam Lal, Aged About 50 Years Caste Dhobei, R/o Gram Tomar Thana & Tahsil Shakti, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh .....(Claimant)

¶11

4. Prakash Kumar Suarvanshi, S/o Shri Maharathi Survanshi, Aged About 32 Years Caste Satnami, R/o Ward No. 11 Baradwar, Tahsil Shakti, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh........(Driver Of Truck C G 04 J 2959)

¶12

5. Mohan Lai Sharma, S/o Shri Nath Sharma, Caste Brahaman, R/o Kamrid, Thana Saragao, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh......(Owner Of Truck No. C G 04 J 2959)

¶13

---- Respondents

¶14

For appellant : Shri Deepak Gupta, Advocate None for respondent No.1 though served. None for respondents 2 to 5 though represented.

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Justice Chandra Bhushan Bajpai

Order On Board

09.12.2016

Heard.

2 . The instant appeal has been preferred after 686 days of its limitation.

¶20

3 . Heard on IA No.01/16 for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

¶21

¶22

4 . It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the appellant Insurance Company on advice of their counsel processed the file and decided to file the appeal as it involves material question of law and fact and after its approval the appellant Head Office Jaipur sent the file to its Bilaspur Office for filing the appeal, hence the delay is bonafide and unintentional, same may be condoned and the appeal may be heard on its merits.

¶23

5 . Perused the impugned award.

¶24

6 . It would be the duty of the appellant to satisfactorily explain the delay for filing the appeal. By simply mentioning that the company decided to file the appeal as there was material question of law and facts involved and the head office of the company was at Jaipur and the delay occurred due to procedural formalities of the company, is not sufficient, thereby the appellant failed to explain the reasons of delay satisfactorily.

¶25

7 . On due consideration, the reasons mentioned in the application, the ground for delay of 686 days in filing the appeal does not inspire confidence after perusal of the impugned award. Consequently, this Court is of the opinion that no case is made out on facts for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The application is thus liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.

¶26

8 . As a consequence, the appeal too is dismissed as being barred by time.

¶27

Sd/(Chandra Bhushan Bajpai) JUDGE

¶28

Bini

Shri Ram General Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Rukhmani Bai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Ram General Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Rukhmani Bai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kayaso Vs Baijnath and Others

Smt. Rampyari Devi Vs Smt. Sushila Sahu

Aajuram Suryavanshi Vs Ashok Kumar Choudhary

Satvant Singh Vs Kamla Pottam and Ors.

Ahivaran Vs Sunni Bai

Umesh Kumar Pandey Vs Jagtaar Singh Chima