Area Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd.,Bbsr Vs Sushama Sahu

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK MACA NO.330 of 2025 & I.A. No. 736 of 2025

¶2

(In the matter of application under Section-173(1) of M.V. Act, 1988).

¶3

Area Manager, Reliance … General Insurance Co. Ltd, BBSR

¶4

Appellant

¶5

-versus-

¶6

Sushama Sahu & Others … Respondents For Appellant : Mr. G.P. Dutta, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. P.K. Mishra, Advocate (R-1 to 4) None(R5)

¶7

CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

¶8

DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT: 06.02.2026 (ORAL)

¶9

G. Satapathy, J.

¶10

1. The present Interlocutory Application in

¶11

I.A. No. 736 of 2025 U/S.5 of the Limitation Act, 1963

¶12

has been filed by the appellant-petitioner to condone the delay of 1147 days in preferring the appeal.

¶13

2. Heard, Mr. G.P. Dutta, learned counsel for the appellant-insurer and Mr. Pradeep Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for R-1 to 4 in the matter and perused the record, but none appears for R-5 despite

¶14

valid service of notice of the appeal.

¶15

MACA No.330 of 2025

¶16

Page 1 of 6

¶17

3. In support of the condonation of the

¶18

delay, the appellant-insurer has taken the following averments in paragraph 4 to 8 of the petition which reads as under: -

¶19

“4. That it is submitted by this petitioner that after judgment was passed the dealing counsel submitted his opinion in the meantime the concerned Officer of the company left from company therefore the file was misplaced and could not traced out.

¶20

5. That the Bhubaneswar Office after tracing the file from the bunch of disposed of files processed the file and after obtaining necessary administrative sanction from the competent Authority forwarded it to the Zonal Office at Kolkata for according approval for filing appeal.

¶21

6. That the Zonal office after processing the file and after obtaining necessary administrative sanction from the competent Authority accorded approval and forwarded it to the Bhubaneswar office and in turn the Bhubaneswar office forwarded the file to the counsel for filing appeal.

¶22

7. That the counsel after receipt of the file requested the office to hand over all the relevant documents and after receipt of the same drafted the memorandum of appeal and the appeal was accordingly filed.

¶23

8. That it is submitted by the petitioner that when the judgment was passed by the learned Tribunal at this time the Officer who was dealing with this file but suffering from Covid19 and was on leave from the company and the file was not processed.”

¶24

4. In the aforesaid backdrop, Mr. Dutta,

¶25

however, submits that since there was a

¶26

MACA No.330 of 2025

¶27

Page 2 of 6

¶28

miscommunication from the side of concerned officer of the Insurance Company, the delay has occasioned and thereby, the delay is neither intentional nor deliberate, but rather is due to unavoidable cost and therefore, the delay may kindly be condoned, but Mr. Pradeep Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for R-1 to 4, however, submits that the delay can never be said to be not intentional, rather it is intentional and the appellant-Insurance Company is only to avoid its liability has preferred this appeal with a delay of 1147 days and, therefore, the delay should not be condoned.

¶29

5. It is no doubt true that the appellantInsurance Company has taken the plea of miscommunication from the side of concerned officer of the Insurance Company which is the primary reason for condonation of delay, but it can never be disputed that the Insurance Company is a statutory body and it cannot be treated like a simple litigant, more particularly when the Insurance Company is dealing such matters day in and day out. Further, compensation to the victim of motor vehicular accident

¶30

MACA No.330 of 2025

¶31

Page 3 of 6

¶32

is a product of Motor Vehicle Accident Act, 1988, which is a beneficial legislation of law and the aim and objective of the Act is to provide succor to the victims of accident and prevent them from destitution. In this case, the impugned judgment was passed on 24.09.2021 in a case of the year 2019 and the Insurance Company has fought the claim of the appellant diligently before the learned Tribunal, however, it has not preferred the appeal in time. In the context of condonation of delay, this Court considers it profitable to refer to the decision in Post Master General and others Vrs. Living Media India Ltd. and another; (2012) 3 SCC 563 , wherein the Apex Court in paragraph 29 has observed as under: -

¶33

“ 29. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the Government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bona fide effort, there is no need to accept their usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/ years due to considerable degree of procedural red tape in the process. The Government Departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment.

¶34

Page 4 of 6

¶35

MACA No.330 of 2025

¶36

Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the Government Department. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few.”

¶37

6. Additionally, in G. Ramegowda, Major & Others Vrs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore; (1988) 2 SCC 142 , the Apex Court in paragraph-14 has held as under: -

¶38

“14. The contours of the area of discretion of the courts in the matter of condonation of delays in filing appeals are set out in a number of pronouncements of this Court. See: Ramlal, Motilal and Chhotelal v. Rewa Coalfield Ltd.; Shakuntala Devi Jain v. Kuntal Kumari ; Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nirmala Devi; Lala Mata Din v. A. Narayanan ; Collector, Land Acquisition v. Katiji etc . There is, it is true, no general principle saving the party from all mistakes of its counsel. If there is negligence, deliberate or gross inaction or lack of bona fides on the part of the party or its counsel there is no reason why the opposite side should be exposed to a timebarred appeal. Each case will have to be considered on the particularities of its own special facts. xx xx xx xx xx.”

¶39

7. In view of the aforesaid facts and the law

¶40

laid down by the Apex Court and on a careful scrutiny of the materials placed on record and the grounds taken by the appellant-insurer in support of claim for

¶41

MACA No.330 of 2025

¶42

Page 5 of 6

¶43

condonation of delay keeping in view the aim and objective of Motor Vehicles Act to grant compensation to the victims of accident and the respondentsclaimants having not yet been compensated since 31.12.2018 for the loss arising out of the accident, in which their sole bread-earner lost his life and the explanation as offered by the appellant-insurer for condonation of delay being unacceptable and the delay as appearing in this case being the product of negligence of the Authority of the Insurance Company and solely attributed to such Insurance Company, the delay in preferring appeal merits no consideration and cannot be accepted.

¶44

8. In the result, the petition by the appellant Insurance Company U/S. 5 of the limitation Act in I.A. No. 736 of 2025 stands dismissed. Since the delay has not been condoned, the appeal filed by the appellantinsurer, stands dismissed. The statutory amount so deposited be refunded back to the appellant-insurer.

¶45

(G. Satapathy) Judge

¶46

Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 6^th day of February, 2026/S.Sasmal MACA No.330 of 2025

¶47

Signature Not Verified

¶48

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBHASMITA SASMAL Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 09-Feb-2026 11:12:23

¶49

Page 6 of 6

Area Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd.,Bbsr v. Sushama Sahu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Area Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd.,Bbsr v. Sushama Sahu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rabindra Behera @ Bikuna @ Nikuna Vs State of Odisha

Raju Dandia Vs State of Odisha

Jitendriya Banchhor @ Dhana Vs State of Odisha

Shiba Haripal @ Sukru Haripal Vs State of Odisha

Sankar Mandal Vs Sanjaya Gahan

Nirmal Sahoo@Sahu Vs State of Odisha