Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. through Its Legal Claims Head East Sri Jitendra Kumar Pandit Vs Mithlesh Kumar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

M. A. No. 70 of 2022

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Bokaro, through its Legal Claims Head (East), Sri Jitendra Kumar Pandit ….. Petitioner Versus

¶4

Mithilesh Kumar

¶5

Khelu Mandal ….. Respondents ----- CORAM

¶6

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶7

¶8

For the Petitioner: Ms. Swati Shalini For Respondent No.1: Mr. Pratyush Lala For Respondent No.2: Mr. P. K. Mukhopadhyay

¶9

¶10

05/13.06.2024 The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment/award dated 04.07.2017 passed by Sri Dhananjay Kumar, learned District Judge-XVIcum-P.O, M.A.C.T, Dhanbad in T.M.V. Claim Case No. 121/2014 whereby the learned Tribunal has allowed the claim of the respondent No.1 directing the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.6,72,235/- along with interest @ 6% per annum with effect from the date of filing of the said claim petition.

¶11

I.A. No. 619/2023

¶12

The present interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of the appellant-Company under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 971 days in preferring the present appeal.

¶13

Learned counsel for the appellant while referring to different paragraphs of the present interlocutory application, submits that Mr. Malay Kumar Banerjee, learned counsel for the appellant, who was conducting the case before the learned Tribunal, fell seriously ill due to which, he could not inform the appellant about the impugned award. He subsequently died on 21.05.2020. Unfortunately, his son-Sourav Banerjee, who was also a practising advocate, died on 13.07.2021 due to Covid-19 infection. Thereafter, the appellant’s representative obtained the certified copy of the impugned award on 08.10.2021. However, many officers of the appellant-Company also fell ill due to Covid-19 pandemic.

¶14

1

¶15

Under the said circumstances, there is delay of 971 days in preferring the present appeal. It is thus submitted that the said delay may be condoned taking lenient view in the matter.

¶16

Learned counsel for the respondent No.1-claimant vehemently opposes the said prayer. It is pointed out that the impugned award was passed by the learned Tribunal as far back as on 04.07.2017, whereas, as per the statements made in the present interlocutory application, learned counsel for the appellant died on 21.05.2020. It has also not been stated in the present interlocutory application as to when learned counsel for the appellant fell seriously ill. The appellant has thus not been able to justify huge delay of 971 days in preferring the present appeal.

¶17

Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 also adopts the aforesaid stand taken by learned counsel for the respondent No.1.

¶18

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the appellant has not been able to sufficiently explain the inordinate delay of 971 days in preferring the present appeal. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Brahampal @ Sammay & Anr. Vs. National Insurance Co. reported in (2021) 6 SCC 512 that in the cases where the inordinate delay exits and the same is attributable to the party’s inaction and negligence, the Courts have to take a strict approach so as to protect the substantial rights of the parties. Since the appellant has not been able to sufficiently explain the reason for committing inordinate delay of 971 days in preferring the present appeal, I am not inclined to condone the said delay.

¶19

The present interlocutory application is accordingly dismissed.

¶20

M. A. No. 70 of 2022

¶21

Since I.A. No. 619/2023 seeking condonation of delay in filing the present appeal has already been dismissed, the present appeal is also dismissed accordingly.

¶22

2

¶23

Satish/-

¶24

If the statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- has been deposited by the appellant before the Registrar General of this Court, the same shall be transferred in the bank account of the concerned Tribunal and the said amount shall either be refunded to the appellant or be included/adjusted while paying compensation by it to the claimant.

¶25

(RAJESH SHANKAR, J)

¶26

3

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. through Its Legal Claims Head East Sri Jitendra Kumar Pandit v. Mithlesh Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. through Its Legal Claims Head East Sri Jitendra Kumar Pandit v. Mithlesh Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rashi Narayan Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sahid Anwar Vs State of Jharkhand

Sant Tulsi Apartment through Its Developer Kavita Prasad Vs Ranchi Municipal Corporation

Smt Sweety Verma Vs the Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.

Ajit Jaiswal Vs M/S United India Insurance Co. Ltd. through Its Divisional Manager

Garrison Engineer Deepatoli through Major Nitin Dhadwal Vs Smt Umrawati Devi