Allowed¶33

Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Babita Devi and Anr.

Gauhati HC16 Jun 2026I.A.(Civil)/7/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay; 116 days; Section 5 Limitation Act 1963; Section 30 Employee's Compensation Act 1923; appeal against judgment and order dated 06.04.2022 of Commissioner for Employee's Compensation, Golaghat, in G.E.C. Case No. 09/2019; dasti service; respondent No. 2 Archana Das could not be traced; investigator Romen Saikia; notice received by Manash Paul; insurer's internal approval chain Guwahati-Kolkata-Chennai; panel advocate communication gap; Gauhati High Court; Justice Kaushik Goswami; I.A.(Civil)/7/2023; GAHC010268332022; 2026:GAU-AS:8689; order dated 17.06.2026.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of the 116 days' delay in filing the connected appeal; the appeal to be registered and numbered, if otherwise in order. ¶33

Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Babita Devi and Anr. — Gauhati HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Condonation of the 116 days' delay in filing the connected appeal; the appeal to be registered and numbered, if otherwise in order.

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether sufficient cause has been shown to condone the delay of 116 days in preferring the connected appeal under Section 30 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 against the judgment and order dated 06.04.2022 in G.E.C. Case No. 09/2019. +1 more

¶24

Court's answer

The applicant furnished a satisfactory explanation for the delay; the chronology of events was disclosed and nothing on record indicated that the delay was deliberate, mala fide or attributable to gross negligence; sufficient cause was shown for not filing the appeal within the prescribed period.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

Repeated attempts were made to effect service on respondent No. 2 and, despite reasonable efforts, her whereabouts could not be ascertained; the Court was satisfied that sufficient steps had been taken to serve her and proceeded to consider the application.

¶23

Key takeaways

The delay of 116 (one hundred sixteen) days in filing the connected appeal is condoned.ratio¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court (Kaushik Goswami, J.), order dated 17.06.2026 in I.A.(Civil)/7/2023: Interlocutory application by Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd. under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking condonation of a 116-day delay in filing its appeal under Section 30 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 against the judgment and order dated 06.04.2022 of the Commissioner for Employee's Compensation, Golaghat, in G.E.C. Case No. 09/2019. Held: (i) sufficient steps had been taken to serve respondent No. 2 (Archana Das), who could not be traced despite about four visits by the insurer's investigator to her Sarupathar address, and the Court proceeded to consider the application; (ii) the delay - arising from transmission of the judgment through the dealing advocate, the insurer's Guwahati branch, Kolkata zonal office and Chennai head office, and a communication gap at the panel advocate - was satisfactorily explained, with nothing deliberate, mala fide or attributable to gross negligence. The delay of 116 days was condoned, the application allowed, and the appeal directed to be registered and numbered if otherwise in order. Counsel for respondent No. 1 had no instructions to oppose the prayer.

Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010268332022

2026:GAU-AS:8689

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

¶5

Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/7/2023

¶6

CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT DARE HOUSE, 2ND FLOOR, NO. 2 N.S.C. BOSE ROAD, CHENNAI- 600001 AND ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT AASTHA PLAZA, 4TH FLOOR, OPPOSITE TO S.B. DEORAH COLLEGE, G.S. ROAD, GUWAHATI.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

BABITA DEVI AND ANR. W/O UPENDRA BHAGAT, VILL.- NO. 1 RANI PUKHURI, P.O. AND P.S.- URIAMGHAT, DIST.- GOLAGHAT (ASSAM), PIN- 785601.

¶9

2:ARCHANA DAS W/O SANJIB DAS

¶10

WARD NO. 2 CHATIANI P.O. AND P.S.- SARUPATHAR PIN- 785601 DIST.- GOLAGHAT (ASSAM)

¶11

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R GOSWAMI, MS. M SAIKIA,MS. P BORTHAKUR Advocate for the Respondent : MS. P BARUAH, MS. SUDAKSHINA K.

¶12

Page No.# 2/5

¶13

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI

¶14

ORDER

¶15

Date : 17.06.2026

¶16

Heard Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Also heard Ms. P. Baruah, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1.

¶17

2. It appears from the affidavit filed by the applicant on 19.03.2024 regarding the steps taken for effecting dasti service upon respondent No. 2 that, despite repeated efforts, the said respondent could not be traced. The relevant portions of the affidavit are extracted hereinbelow:

¶18

“ 2. That your humble deponent/appellant have filed this instant I.A. (C) No:07/2023 in condoning the delay for filing the MFA Filing Sl No.12355/2022 challenging the Judgment and Order dated 06.04.2022 passed by the Learned Commissioner for Employee's Compensation, in GEC Case No.09/2019 before this Hon'ble Court. The Hon'ble Court after hearing the parties issued notice upon all the respondents but the notice on Respondent No.2 were received by some Manash Paul without stating any relationship status with the Respondent No.2.

¶19

3. The Hon'ble Court vide its order dated 24.03.2023 directed the appellant to take steps upon Respondent No.2 by means of dasti service and file an affidavit in compliance of the order.

¶20

4. That your humble deponent begs to state that in compliance with the Hon'ble Court order dated 24.03.2023 the appellant sent one of its Investigators Sri Romen Saikia to the premises of the Respondent No.2(Employer/Owner) Smti Archana Das to serve the Notice upon the Respondent No.2(Employer/Owner) who is presently residing in Ward No.2 Chatiani, P.O. & P.S.-Sarupathar, District-Golaghat, Pin 785601,Assam. The said Investigator personally went to the above-mentioned home address of the Respondent No. 2(Employer/Owner) about four times. But everytime he found that the house was locked. When he enquired about them

¶21

Page No.# 3/5

¶22

from their neighbours, their neighbours could not provide any information about her and even could not provide any contact number to contact them over telephone. Thus the respondent No.2 (Employer/Owner) could not be traced out due to lack of proper information. Accordingly the copy could not be served to the Respondent No.2, the employer cum owner of the vehicle involved. ”

¶23

3. From the aforesaid affidavit, it is evident that repeated attempts were made by the applicant to effect service upon respondent No. 2. However, despite reasonable efforts, the applicant could not ascertain her whereabouts. This Court is, therefore, satisfied that sufficient steps have been taken to serve respondent No. 2 and proceeds to consider the present application.

¶24

4. By way of the present interlocutory application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the applicant seeks condonation of a delay of 116 days in preferring the connected appeal under Section 30 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923, assailing the judgment and order dated 06.04.2022 passed by the learned Commissioner for Employee’s Compensation, Golaghat, in G.E.C. Case No. 09/2019.

¶25

5. The delay has been explained in the following manner:

¶26

“ 2. That as the Judgment and Order was passed on 06.04.2022 the last date for filing the appeal is 05.06.2022. But since appeal has been filed on 30.09.2022 there is a delay of 116 (One hundred and sixteen) days in filing this appeal. It is stated that the Judgment and Order dated 06.04.2022 was sent by the dealing Advocate at Golaghat to the Branch Office of the Appellant at Guwahati vide his letter dated 02.05.2022 which was received by the Guwahati Office of the Appellant on 16.05.2022. The Guwahati Office after receipt of the clarifications forwarded the matter to the Zonal office at Kolkata on 19.05.2022 for approval for filing an appeal. The Kolkata Office referred the matter to the head Office at Chennai on 23.05.2022.

¶27

Page No.# 4/5

¶28

The Head Office at Chennai after seeking some clarifications gave its approval for filing an appeal on 30.06.2022. The Kolkata Zonal Office thereafter communicated the approval to the Guwahati Office. The Guwahati Branch Office thereafter sent the brief to the panel advocate on 13.07.2022 for filing an appeal. There was however a communication gap at the end of the panel advocate and as a result the matter was lying unattended for about two weeks. On being reminded about the filing of the appeal the panel advocate became aware of the fact and searched out the file on 27.07.2022 and while preparing the appeal felt the need to go through the entire records of the case before the Employees Commissioner and asked the Guwahati Office of the applicant on 05.08.2022 to provide the same. After receipt of the required documents after a few days the appeal was filed on 30.09.2022 but in the process there occurred a delay of 116 (one hundred and Sixteen days in filing the appeal which was unintentional and for sufficient cause.”

¶29

6. Ms. P. Baruah, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, submits that she has no instructions to oppose the prayer for condonation of delay.

¶30

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon consideration of the averments made in the application, this Court finds that the applicant has furnished a satisfactory explanation for the delay in preferring the appeal. The chronology of events leading to the delay has been disclosed and there is nothing on record to indicate that the delay was deliberate, mala fide or attributable to gross negligence. This Court is, therefore, satisfied that sufficient cause has been shown for not filing the appeal within the prescribed period.

¶31

8. Accordingly, the delay of 116 (one hundred sixteen) days in filing the connected appeal is hereby condoned.

¶32

Page No.# 5/5

¶33

9. The interlocutory application stands allowed.

¶34

10. Let the appeal be registered and numbered, if otherwise in order.

¶35

JUDGE

¶36

Comparing Assistant

Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Babita Devi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Babita Devi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Candid Drug Distributors and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Smti Jayanti Das Vs the Union of India

Kuhinur Khatun and 3 Ors. Vs the Regional Manager and 4 Ors.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Banikanta Das and Anr.

Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Ribi Dutta and 2 Ors.

Dipu Deka Vs Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd.