AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr Alok Lal, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant.
I.A. No. 16005 of 2025 seeks condonation of delay of 204 days in instituting the accompanying appeal to challenge the Judgment and Award dated 27.01.2025 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bermo at Tenughat in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 137 of 2020, awarding the claimants compensation of Rs. 14,03,820/-.
Paragraphs 1 and 2 of this I.A. simply refer to the fact that the appeal is filed against the impugned Award. In paragraphs 3, 4 and 5, certain grounds of appeal on merits have been repeated. Paragraph 6 admits that there is a 204-day delay in filing the accompanying appeal.
In paragraph 7, it is vaguely stated that upon the receipt of the copy of the impugned Award, the counsel for the appellant opined for filing of the appeal. Paragraph 8 then says that files were sent to counsel to prepare the memo of appeal. Paragraph 9 says that the administrative control of the appellants is at Mumbai and the cases are monitored from Kolkata. Several officers examined the record, and “in this process, it consumes some time”. Paragraph 10 states that the delay is for circumstances “beyond the control of the appellant”. Paragraph 11 states that the delay is neither deliberate nor intentional, but it has occurred due to completion of procedural formalities in obtaining sanctions from the competent authorities.
Firstly, the averments in paragraphs 7 to 9 are blissfully vague. No details have been provided, including the dates on which the copy was received, the opinion was given, etc. Secondly, this Court cannot accept that the reasons and circumstances stated are beyond the appellant's control. The law has not prescribed any separate period of limitation for insurance companies that have their head offices at a different place. Thirdly, apart from stating as a matter of fact that head office or administrative offices are at different places, there are no particulars given in this case regarding the reference of these matters to those offices and examination, if any, by several officers.
Based upon such vague, routine and unverifiable statements, the delay cannot be condoned. This is more so in matters where the Insurance Companies resist execution applications, fail to pay the awarded amounts despite clear directions by the Tribunals for payment of the same in a time-bound manner, by ignoring the fact that they have not obtained any interim relief from any Court to justify such non-payment.
In Postmaster General and Others Vs. Living Media India Limited and Another, (2012)3 SCC 563, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the law of limitation binds everybody equally, and the Government's defence, as an impersonal machinery that has inherited bureaucratic methodology, cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies available.
In this case, the appellant Insurance Company is a private Sector entity. Therefore, it is surprising that even this private Sector entity engaging in commerce speaks about bureaucratic delays and the consumption of time. Here, the appellant benefits from filing the appeal belatedly. In any event, the harm which is caused to the claimants of road accidents is incalculably higher than the prejudice that is caused to the appellant Insurance Company or its officials. Therefore, it is not possible to accept the vague, routine and unverifiable reasons set out in the I.A.
The grounds referred to in the application cannot be considered at the stage of deciding an application for condonation of delay. In any event, even the grounds raised appear to be in conflict with decided cases on the subject.
For all the above reasons, the application for condonation of delay is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. I.A. No. 16005 of 2025 is dismissed. Consequently, the accompanying appeal and I. A.s therein do not survive and are hereby dismissed without any order for costs.
The appellants must now, without delaying the execution proceedings which the claimants were forced to file, deposit the awarded amount together with interest within two weeks from today. Mr Lal requests a longer time.
When this matter was mentioned, Mr Lal had stated that, as usual, the amount would be deposited within two weeks as a precondition for a stay. This means that the amount is ready and available with the appellant Insurance Company. Accordingly, the direction for deposit within two weeks is reiterated. The executing Court must immediately disburse the deposited amount to the claimants through regular banking channels.
A compliance report must be filed with this Court by 1st October 2026. List the matter on 9th October 2026 to consider the compliance report.
The Registry of this Court to refund the statutory deposited amount after the appellants produce proof of having deposited the entire awarded amount together with interest before the Executing Court within two weeks from the date.