Allowed

Jerina Bibi v. the National Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr.

Gauhati HC12 Aug 2022I.A.(Civil)/799/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court allowed an interlocutory application seeking condonation of delay in filing a Motor Accidents Appeal. The court accepted financial hardship as sufficient cause for the 263-day delay, citing the liberal judicial approach required under the Motor Vehicles Act.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 263 days condoned; Interlocutory Application allowed and disposed of; Accompanying appeal registered and listed in 2 weeks.

Jerina Bibi Vs the National Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr. — Insurance | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/6

¶2

GAHC010046042019

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/799/2019

¶5

JERINA BIBI W/O SIRAJUL HAQUE.

¶6

VILLAGE KARIGAON, PO AND PS BOKO, DIST KAMRUP R ASSAM, 781123

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, GS ROAD, BHANGAGARH, GUWAHATI 05,, KAMRUP M ASSAM

¶9

2:MD. JAHER ALI AHMED

¶10

S.O SIRAJUL HAQUE VILLAGE KARIGAON PO AND PS BOKO DIST KAMRUP R ASSAM 781123

¶11

THE OWNER CUM DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE ENGINE NO. K-BN 737630 DL NO 0120120139375 VALID UPTO 03.10.203

¶12

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N UDDIN

¶13

Advocate for the Respondent : MRS. S ROY

¶14

Page No.# 2/6

¶15

BEFORE

¶16

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Date : 12-08-2022

¶19

Heard Mr. N. Uddin, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Ms. S. Roy, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1.

¶20

2. Although service on respondent No. 2 is complete and he was represented by a counsel on earlier dates, none appears on behalf of the respondent No. 2 when the matter is called up. No objection has been filed by respondent No. 2.

¶21

3. This Interlocutory Application has been filed by the applicant who is the claimant, praying for condonation of delay of 263 days that has occurred in filing the connected appeal. The appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 173 being aggrieved by the Judgment dated 21.11.2017 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 2, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in MAC Case No. 2087/2015 whereby an amount of Rs. 5,000/was directed to be paid to the applicant by the Insurance Company along with an interest of 6% per annum. The Tribunal also awarded Rs. 1,000/- as a cost of this proceedings to the applicant. Being aggrieved by the award, the present appeal has been preferred seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded.

¶22

4. Ms. Roy, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 has objected to the prayer for condonation of delay by filing her objections. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 submits that the delay has not been properly explained. The only ground urged in the delay condonation application is financial hardships. No further ground is urged. As such, the application should be dismissed.

¶23

Page No.# 3/6

¶24

5. Upon perusal of the pleadings on record, it is seen that the applicant is a housewife and is about 59 years on the date of filing of the application. The case in brief of the applicant before the Tribunal was that she was travelling by a vehicle and during the course of her journey that vehicle met with accident by hitting a road side tree and thereby causing grievous injury to her on her person. From the evidence recorded, it is seen that she sustained injury on her leg, head, chest and other parts of the body. Such injuries required treatment at hospital as an inpatient. She consequently suffered mental and physical agony and incurred substantial expenses for her treatment.

¶25

6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant does not have a steady income and, therefore, there was severe financial hardship because of which she could not take recourse to proper legal advice for taking steps for filing the necessary appeal within the period of limitation as provided for under the statute.

¶26

7. The learned counsels for the parties have been heard and the pleadings on record have been duly perused.

¶27

8. The learned counsel for the applicant has pressed into service the Apex Court’s decision dated 1^st July, 2019 rendered in Hemlata Verma –Vs- M/s ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others reported in MANU/SC/1584/2019 to contend that in matters of condonation of delay the Court should take a liberal view.

¶28

9. The respondent No. 1 has objected the prayer for condonation of delay on the ground that day to day explanation for the delay has not been furnished and further that there is no explanation as to when the applicant managed to approach the counsel by filing the accompanying appeal. Consequently, it is

¶29

Page No.# 4/6

¶30

submitted that there is no proper explanation or the delay that has occurred for condoning the delay. However, it is not disputed by respondent No. 1 that there was financial hardship faced by the applicant for filing the application seeking condonation of delay.

¶31

10. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial legislation to aid the persons or citizens who are victims in road accidents. In the objections filed by the respondent No. 1 there is no averment made that financial hardship stated to have been faced by the applicant is not a correct statement. There is also no averment in the objections filed by the respondent No. 1 that the petitioner is otherwise gainfully employed and/or sufficiently financially stable and for reasons other than those stated in the I.A. the appeal was not filed within the limitation provided in the statute and that she was therefore guilty of laches.

¶32

11. It has been consistent view of the Apex Court that in matters of delay the Court should take liberal view unless there are materials to suggest that the applicant is resorted the dilatory tactics.

¶33

12. In N. Balakrishnan –Vs- M. Krishnamurthy reported in (1998) 7 SCC 123, the Apex Court held that t he primary function of a court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice. Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. The law of limitation fixes a lifespan for such legal remedy for the redressal of the legal injury so suffered. The law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim interest reipublicae up sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation).

¶34

Page No.# 5/6

¶35

13. In matters of condonation of delay, it is not the length of the delay that matters but the acceptability of the explanation for the delay that has occurred. In every case of delay there can be some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned. However, that alone is not enough to turn down his plea and to shut the door against him. If the explanation does not smack of mala fides or it is not put forth as part of a dilatory strategy, the court must show utmost consideration to the suitor. There can be no presumption that delay in approaching the Court is always deliberate.

¶36

14. In State of Nagaland –Vs- Lipok Ao and Others reported in (2005) 3 SCC 752 relying on N. Balakrishnan (supra). The Apex Court held that “what constitutes sufficient cause cannot be laid down by hard and fast rules”. In matters of condonation of delay, the Court should adopt pragmatic approach in a justice oriented process.

¶37

15. Considering the grounds urged and the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and considering the fact that this is a beneficial legislation, This Court finds force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶38

16. In terms of the principle laid down by the Apex Court and upon due consideration of the grounds urged and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court considers that the grounds urged in the application seeking condonation of delay can be accepted to be sufficient grounds for the explanation for the delay of 263 days that had occurred in filing the accompanying appeal by the applicant.

¶39

17. Accordingly, the delay of 263 days is condoned. Interlocutory Application is allowed and disposed of.

¶40

Page No.# 6/6

¶41

18. Registry is directed to register the accompanying appeal and list it before the Court after 2(two) weeks.

¶42

JUDGE

¶43

Comparing Assistant

Jerina Bibi v. the National Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jerina Bibi v. the National Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sulakhyana Saikia Bharali Vs Prabin Saikia

Shamin Ahmed Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors. F

Saraswati Sengupta and Anr. Vs the Union of India and 3 Ors.

Lakhimai Medhi @ Bordoloi and 2 Ors. Vs the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and 2 Ors.

The Union of India and 3 Ors. Vs Diganta Kumar Chetia

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mrs. Nirmali Deka and 3 Ors.