AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G. Satapathy, J.
This is an Appeal of the year 2010, but albeit the notice on limitation in MACA was directed to be issued subject to filing of the requisites as per the order dated 11.11.2010, however, the Office note reflects that postal requisites for issuance of notice on limitation to the respondents had not been filed as per the Office note dated 25.03.2019, however, Ms. Sudhamayee Das, learned counsel for the appellant-insurer seeks for further time.
It is not disputed that this Appeal has been filed with a delay of 489 days, but in the meantime, no sincere steps has been taken by the appellant-insurer. Had there been delay of shorter duration, the matter could have been understood, but it is an Appeal against award passed in favour of the claimants for the loss of their sole bread earner and the Appeal cannot be kept as a Damocles’ sword over the claimants for a such long duration of around 16 year, since the appeal has been filed in the year 2010 and that too, the Appeal has been filed with a delay of 489 days. In the context of condonation of delay, this Court is fortified with the decision in Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by Legal Representatives and others Vrs. Special Deputy Collector (LA); 2024 SCC OnLine SC 513 / (2024) 12 SCC 336), wherein the Apex Court at paragraph-28 has inter alia held as under: -
“28.On a harmonious consideration of the provisions of the law, as aforesaid, and the law laid down by this Court, it is evident that:
28.1.Law of limitation is based upon public policy that there should be an end to litigation by forfeiting the right to remedy rather than the right itself;
28.2.A right or the remedy that has not been exercised or availed of for a long time must come to an end or cease to exist after a fixed period of time;
28.3.The provisions of the Limitation Act have to be construed differently, such as Section 3 has to be construed in a strict sense whereas Section 5 has to be construed liberally;
28.4.In order to advance substantial justice, though liberal approach, justice-oriented approach or cause of substantial justice may be kept in mind but the same cannot be used to defeat the substantial law of limitation contained in Section 3 of the Limitation Act;
28.5.Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is established for various factors such as, where there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence;
28.6.Merely some persons obtained relief in similar matter, it does not mean that others are also entitled to the same benefit if the court is not satisfied with the cause shown for the delay in filing the appeal;
28.7.Merits of the case are not required to be considered in condoning the delay; and
28.8.Delay condonation application has to be decided on the parameters laid down for condoning the delay and condoning the delay for the reason that the conditions have been imposed, tantamount to disregarding the statutory provision.”
In the aforesaid facts and circumstance and taking into consideration the delay in preferring the Appeal and there being no diligent steps taken by the insurer, the present I.A. No. 1348 of 2010 for condonation of delay of 489 days is, hereby, dismissed. As a necessary corollary, MACA No.453 of 2010 stands dismissed as barred by limitation at the admission stage. No order as to costs.
In the result, the insurer is ordered to deposit the compensation as awarded to the claimants, if not satisfied the award in the meantime, within eight weeks hence and on such deposit; the compensation amount shall be disbursed to the claimants in terms of the award. The statutory deposit together with the accrued interest thereon be refunded back to the insurer upon production of proof of deposit of the compensation amount before the Tribunal.