Dismissed

B.M.,N.I.a.Co.Ltd. v. Sabitri Jhadia

Orissa HC5 Aug 2025MACA/536/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Insurance company sought condonation of 132-day delay in appealing a motor accident death compensation award of Rs.2,74,000. Relying on Post Master General vrs. Living Media Ltd., the court held bureaucratic file movement was not sufficient cause and dismissed both the Misc. Case and the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Statutory deposit with accrued interest refunded to counsel for the Insurance Company on proper application; no substantive relief granted.

B.M.,N.I.a.Co.Ltd. Vs Sabitri Jhadia — Motor Accident Claims | Orissa HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK MACA No.536 of 2007

¶2

Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

¶3

Appellant

¶4

Mr. N. Ghosh, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

1.Sabitri Jhadia 2.Sahu Jhadia

¶7

…. Respondents

¶8

Order No.

¶9

CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH ORDER 05.08.2025

¶10

14. Misc. Case No.1155 of 2007 & MACA No.536 of 2007

¶11

The MACA has been filed assailing the judgment dated 17.10.2006 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge- cum- 3^rd M.A.C.T, Raygada in MAC Case No.10 of 2004 awarding a compensation of Rs.2,74,000/alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application i.e. 06.07.2004 on account of death of husband of Respondent-Claimant.

¶12

Admittedly, there is delay of 132 days in filing the present appeal.

¶13

This Misc. Case has been filed for condonation of delay of 132 days in filing the appeal.

¶14

Learned counsel for the Insurance Company, referring to the note of the Registry regarding postal tracking report, submits that though the notice in Misc. Case for condonation of delay has been delivered on

¶15

Page 1 of 3

¶16

the Respondents-Claimants, there is no appearance on behalf of the Respondents-Claimants.

¶17

It is further submitted that since the Appellant is a public sector undertaking and taking into account the grounds taken in the Misc. Case, the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned.

¶18

This Court perused the recitals in the Misc. Case relating to condonation of delay. For convenience of reference, Paragraphs-2 to 3 thereof are extracted hereunder:

¶19

“xxx xxx xxx

¶20

That the above order passed on 17.10.2006 and certified copy was applied on 20.10.2006 and was received by the conducting lawyer on 20.10.2006.

¶21

That the conducting lawyer sent the order with his opinion on 25.10.2006 to Branch Manager NIA, Rayagada. The Branch Manager send the certified copy of the order to Divisional Manager as the conducting lawyer to apply certified copy of the deposition G.R Records, D.L. and R.C. Book etc. accordingly the conducting lawyer sent all the certified copy of the required documents to the Divisional Manager DO-III NIA on 03.01.2007. The Divisional Manager received certified copy of the documents and the file on 08.01.2007 and sent the entire file to the Regional Manager NIA, BBSR on 27.02.2007 for endorsement for filing appeal in the Hon’ble High Court. The Regional Manager after verifying the required documents sent the file on 09.05.2007 to the Sr. Divisional Manager NIA, DO-II Cantonment Road, CuttackI endorsing to prefer appeal in the Hon’ble High Court. The Sr. Divisional Manager after scrutinizing all documents sent the file to this

¶22

Page 2 of 3

¶23

advocate on 05.02.2007 and accordingly the appeal has been drafted and filed on 28.05.2007 before Hon’ble High Court.”

¶24

xxx xxx xxx”

¶25

Considering the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Post Master General & others vrs. Living Media Ltd. & another , (2012) 3 SCC 563 , this Court is of the considered view that the grounds referred to hereinabove do not qualify to be treated as “sufficient cause” so as to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Hence, this Court is not persuaded to condone the delay of 132 days in filing the appeal.

¶26

Since Misc. Case has been dismissed on the ground of delay, this Court does not delve into the merit of the recitals of the memorandum of appeal.

¶27

Accordingly, MACA stands dismissed. 10. Statutory deposit along with accrued interest be refunded to the learned counsel for the Insurance Company on proper application.

¶28

(V. NARASINGH) Judge

¶29

PKS

¶30

Signature Not Verified

¶31

Digitally Signed Signed by: PRADEEP KUMAR SWAIN Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 08-Aug-2025 18:06:40

¶32

Page 3 of 3

B.M.,N.I.a.Co.Ltd. v. Sabitri Jhadia

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.M.,N.I.a.Co.Ltd. v. Sabitri Jhadia

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

Dharanidhar Bhuyan Vs Union of India and or

Khageswar Barik Vs State of Odisha

Sujit Kumar Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Laxmidhar Sahoo Vs Binod Bihari Prusty

Sritam Rath Vs State of Odisha

Sasanka Sekhar Bhuyan Vs Dhirendra Kumar Rath