Partly allowed

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. Chuchitra Nath and 2 Ors.

Gauhati HC14 Sept 2022I.A.(Civil)/953/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order allowed an interlocutory application seeking condonation of a 57-day delay in filing an appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. The court found the reasons sufficient and non-dilatory, relying on a Supreme Court precedent.

What did the court decide?

The interlocutory application for condonation of delay is allowed. The accompanying appeal is registered and listed before the Court.

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Smt. Chuchitra… — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010057342019

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/953/2019

¶5

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. ( A CENTRAL GOVT. UNDERTAKING) HAVING ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT GUWAHATI, G.S. ROAD, ULUBARI, GUWAHATI, REP., BY THE ASSISTANT MANAGER, GAUHATI REGIONAL OFFICE, ULUBARI, GUWAHATI- 781007.

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

SMT. CHUCHITRA NATH AND 2 ORS. W/O- LATE PARTHO KAR R/O- CHANDARIA, GOALPARA TOWN, P.O., P.S. AND DIST.- GOALPARA, ASSAM, PIN- 783101.

¶8

2:SRI AAYUSMAN KAR S/O- LATE PARTHO KAR R/O- CHANDARIA GOALPARA TOWN P.O. P.S. AND DIST.- GOALPARA ASSAM PIN- 783101. (REP. BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY NO.1 ). 3:MR. UTPAL DAS S/O- SRI CHARAN DAS R/O- BIR CHILARAY PATH (NEAR BIR CHILARAY CLUB) WARD NO. 8 GOALPARA TOWN P.O. P.S. AND DIST.- GOALPARA ASSAM PIN- 783101. (OWNER-CUM-DRIVER)

¶9

Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. R D MOZUMDAR

¶10

Page No.# 2/4

¶11

Advocate for the Respondent :

¶12

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Date : 14.09.2022

¶15

Heard Ms. R. D. Mozumdar, learned counsel for the applicant.

¶16

Although office notes dated 04.04.2022 and 09.09.2022 reflect that service of notice on respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 has been affected, none appears for the respondents when the matter is taken up.

¶17

This Interlocutory Application has been filed by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited seeking a condonation of delay of 57 days beyond the period of limitation prescribed while filing the accompanying appeal. The appeal is directed against the Judgment and Award dated 13.09.2018 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Goalpara, Assam in MAC Case No. 67/2016. According to the applicant they are aggrieved by the award of Rs.14,62,800/(Rupees Fourteen Lakh Sixty Two Thousand Eight Hundred) awarded to the claimant along with an interest of 6% from the date of concluding the evidence of the claimants.

¶18

The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Goalpara, Assam did not take into account the relevant multiplier and the various conditions and clauses referred to in the insurance policy and had gone beyond such clauses while arriving at the compensation. Being aggrieved, the accompanying appeal has been filed and in the process the delay of 57 days has been occurred.

¶19

The grounds urged in support of the prayer for condonation of delay are

¶20

Page No.# 3/4

¶21

under:-

¶22

“3. That the legal opinion of the dealing counsel was received on 25.10.2018 along with the certified copy of the judgment.

¶23

That it is pertinent to mention here that no free copy was provided to the appellant company. The certified copy was applied on 06.10.2018 and it was provided on 15.10.2018, after 9 days.

¶24

That it was decided to file appeal against the judgment, as the judgment was not as per the settled proposition of law. Evidence was adduced in the case to prove the policy condition. But the Learned Member ignored the evidence in a perverse manner.

¶25

That the file was prepared in the Divisional Office and along with letter dated 21.12.18 the file was sent to the Gauhati Regional Office, for filing the appeal.

¶26

That thereafter the file was placed before competent authority on 4.1.2019 for approval. The approval was given on 8.1.2019.

¶27

That thereafter the file was prepared and handed over to the chamber of the counsel on 17.01.2019 for preferring the appeal.

¶28

That the counsel took a few days to prepare the appeal. The appeal was ready on 23.01.2019. The appeal was filed on 12.02.2019, on receipt of the cheque for statutory deposit. In the process there occurred delay of 57 days beyond the period of limitation”.

¶29

The learned counsel for the applicant has been heard. In spite of service of notice, none had represented the opposite parties/respondents No. 1, 2 and 3.

¶30

Upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and upon consideration of the grounds urged, this Court is of the view that the grounds urged can be considered to be sufficient explanation of the delay that had occurred in filing the accompanying appeal. The explanation put forth for the delay that has

¶31

Page No.# 4/4

¶32

occurred does not reveal any mala fides nor can it be seen as dilatory tactics. On the grounds urged in the Interlocutory Application, this Court finds that the delay that had occurred in filing the accompanying appeal can be condoned.

¶33

Relying upon the principle laid down in N. Balakrishnan Vs. M Krishnamurthy reported in (1998) 7 SCC 123, the delay of 57 days in filing the accompanying appeal against the Judgment and Award dated 13.09.2018 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Goalpara, Assam in MAC Case No. 67/2016 is hereby condoned.

¶34

The interlocutory application is, accordingly, allowed and disposed of.

¶35

The Registry is directed to register the connected accompanying appeal and list it before the Court.

¶36

Comparing Assistant

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. Chuchitra Nath and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. Chuchitra Nath and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rakesh Kumar Vs M. S. Mani Vannan and 4 Ors.

Saurav Jyoti Baruah Vs Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. and 3 Ors.

The Union of India and 3 Ors. Vs Niranjan Kumar Deori

The National Insurance Company Limited Vs Dr. Dhiman Jyoti Bora and 2 Ors.

Anjan Thapa Vs Md. Nazmi and 2 Ors.

Nandan Medhi Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.