Page No.# 1/9 GAHC030006292024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/170/2024 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Aizawl VERSUS Malsawmtluangi (Minor) r/b H. Lalmalsawma and 4 Ors. D/o Vungngaihtlingi, Represented by H.Lalmalsawma, Ngur, Champhai District, Mizoram Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Johny L Tochhawng Advocate for the Respondent : Mr K Laldinliana for R4 & 5 Linked Case : MACApp./9/2024 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Aizawl VERSUS Smt Malsawmtluangi (Minor) r/b H.Lalmalsawma and 4 Ors. D/o Vungngaihtlingi R/b H.Lalmalsawma Ngur Champhai District Mizoram 2:Lalpekhlua (Minor) S/o Vungngaihtlingi Represented by H.Lalmalsawma Ngur Page No.# 2/9 Champhai District 3:Lalrokhawma S/o Ngunmanga R/o Thekte Champhai 4:Dr Joela S/o Sanghmingthanga Pautu R/o Chhinga Veng Aizawl 5:Johny Zaihmingthanga S/o Laikhuma R/o Zemabawk Aizawl Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Johny L Tochhawng Advocate for the Respondent : Mr. Lalkhumsanga for R1 & R2 B E F O R E HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MARLI VANKUNG ORDER 03.06.2025 Heard Mr. Johny L. Tochhawng, learned counsel for the appellant along with Mr. C. Tlanthianghlima, learned counsel for the OP No. 1 & 2 and Mr. K. Laldinliana, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 4 & 5. 2. The instant interlocutory application is for the condonation of a delay of 616 days in filing the appeal against the Judgment & Award dated 26.10.2022 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aizawl District, Mizoram, in MACT Case No. 12/2019. 3. Mr. Johny L. Tochhawng, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the delay in filing the appeal against the Judgment & Award dated 26.10.2022 is Page No.# 3/9 due to bonafide inadvertent reasons and not due to any negligence or laches on the part of the applicant. He submits that the reasons for the delay has been explained at para 2(a) to para 2(q) of the Interlocutory Application. He highlighted that the main reasons for the delay as explained in the application, is that the copies of the Judgment & Award dated 26.10.2022 was received by the counsel for the applicant on 28.10.2022. Thereafter, the applicant had sent a letter requesting the counsel to obtain certified true copies of the impugned judgment & award along with the legal opinion of the same. Accordingly, the certified true copy and his legal opinion was sent to the Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., which was received on 09.11.2022, wherein, the empanelled advocate had suggested for filing an appeal. The same was then sent to the Divisional Officer, Silchar on 10.11.2022, however since the matter was beyond the financial authority of the Divisional Officer, it was sent to the Legal Hub, Regional Office, Gauhati on 19.12.2022 for necessary action. As such, 55 days had gone from the date of the judgment & award. The offices were closed due to winter holiday between 20.12.2022 to 11.01.2023 and thereafter, the matter was pursued by the Assistant Manager, Legal Hub, Regional Office, Gauhati, who had put up the matter to the competent authority, sometime in the month of February, 2022. Meanwhile, there were negotiations between the Divisional Office, Silchar of the Insurance Company and the claimants in an attempt to settle the case amicably for which the Insurance Company waited for about 3 months, wherein, 206 days had gone by from the said Judgment & Award dated 26.10.2022. Subsequently, the Legal Hub demanded for fresh investigation into the accident and the Investigator had submitted his investigation report on 14.07.2023, which was forwarded to the Legal Hub, Gauhati in the month of August, 2023 for further necessary action. Page No.# 4/9 Immediate steps were not taken with the Legal Hub due to heavy back log of court cases pending for disposal and time was taken for gathering and preparing the required documents. From 21.12.2023 to 21.01.2024, the Gauhati High Court, Aizawl Bench was closed due to winter vacation and as such, the office of the counsel for the applicant was also closed and no official communication could take place during the said period. On 30.01.2024, the Legal Hub, Gauhati had communicated to the Regional Manager, Gauhati stating that as per the legal expert opinion, there are valid grounds for filing an appeal. This legal opinion was received by the office of the Chief Regional Manager, Regional Office, Gauhati on 05.02.2024, wherein, it was recommended for filing an appeal, which was then forwarded to the Divisional Office, Silchar. Subsequently, the Divisional Office, Silchar informed the Branch Office, Aizawl for obtaining certified copies of the claim petition along with the evidence adduced by the witnesses before the learned MACT Tribunal, which was furnished to the Branch Office in the month of March, 2024 and sent to the Divisional Office, Silchar during the last week of March, 2024. On 22.07.2024, the Divisional Office, Silchar sent a Letter dated 22.07.2024 to the Brach Office, Aizawl for appointment of empanelled advocate to file the appeal. The empanelled advocate then took time for drafting the appeal and for furnishing the statutory deposit amounting to Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) from the Branch Manager, Aizawl. All these steps had resulted in a delay of 161 days in filing the appeal against the impugned Judgment & Award dated 26.10.2022. The learned counsel relied on the following authorities in Shakson Belthissor vs. State of Kerala & Anr. reported in (2009) 4 SCC 94 (para 11 & 14) and in the case of Sheo Raj Singh vs. Union of India reported in (2023) Page No.# 5/9 10 SCC 531 (para 17, 18, 21 & 26) and S. Iyyapan v. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. reported in (2013) 7 SCC 62 (para 15, 16 & 17). 4. Mr. C. Tlanthianghlima, learned counsel for the OP Nos. 1 & 2 submitted that no sufficient grounds have been laid out by the applicant for the delay of 616 days in filing the appeal against the impugned Judgment & Award dated 26.11.2022. He submits that the applicant had received the certified copies of the Judgment & Award dated 26.11.2022 along with the legal opinion dated 02.11.2022 on 09.11.2022, but they deliberately took more than a month to file the same to the Legal Hub Regional Office, Gauhati, which shows the casual attitude and negligence on the part of the applicant. The Divisional Office, Silchar had delayed and taken more than 1 month to communicate the necessary documents to the Legal Hub, Regional Office, Gauhati. He further submitted that there is no document to prove that the offices were closed for winter between 20.12.2022 & 11.01.2023 and it is not mentioned as to which office was closed during this said period. He further submitted that there was no negotiation for settlement of the dispute between the parties as submitted by the applicant since the claimants have no knowledge of such an attempt to settle the matter with the Insurance Company. The learned counsel also submitted that the applicant had belatedly appointed an Investigator, who submitted his investigation report only on 14.07.2023, wherein, an investigation could have been conducted during the pendency of the case before the learned Tribunal. He further submitted that there is absolutely no proper explanation as to what steps were taken by the applicant during the months of August, 2023 up to the second week of December, 2023. The only explanation given is that certain regulatory standards have to be complied with, which is vague with no documentary evidence. The learned counsel also submitted that even though Page No.# 6/9 the High Court observed winter vacation between 21.12.2023 till 12.01.2024, however, the Registry was open during this period and the appeal petition could also be filed during the said period. He further submitted that the legal opinion of the learned counsel for the applicant was already received on 09.11.2022 for filing an appeal and another legal opinion said to be obtained on 05.02.2024 is mere formality. He further submitted that from the explanation given by the applicants, it can be seen that there is no explanation as to what steps were taken by the applicant during the period from March, 2024 to 21.07.2024. He therefore submitted that the actions of the applicant clearly shows that there was negligence on behalf of the applicant in filing the appeal, which was not done promptly or with due diligence. The learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Basawaraj & Anr. Vrs Special Land Acquisition Officer reported in (2013) 14 SCC 81 and the Judgment of this court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nanda Kanai Pegu & Ors. (2023) 6 GLT 145 and on the order of this court in The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Smt. C. Semiangi & 9 Ors. In Case No. I.A.(Civil)/30/2022 dated 02.03.2023 and in the case of Cholamandan M/S General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sh. Hrangzela & 3 Ors. in Case No. I.A.(Civil)/143/2023 dated 08.04.2025. 5. Mr. K. Laldinliana, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 & 4 submitted that the delay of the applicant is due to the inefficiency, negligence and procedural casualness and no sufficient grounds has been given for the delay. He submits that there is no proof to show that there was any attempt between the parties to come to an amicable settlement and that the administrative delay, which is due to the casual attitude of the applicant is 545 days, wherein, the matter was kept pending before the Legal Hub, Regional Office, Gauhati and Page No.# 7/9 also in the office of the Divisional Office, Silchar wherein, no prompt action was taken by the applicants. He submits that even though a legal opinion for filing the appeal was given as early as on 02.11.2022 and on 09.11.2022, however, no prompt action was taken and thus, there are no grounds for condonation of the delay, and that the applicants have been negligent and casual in filing the appeal in spite of the applicant being Insurance Company, which ought to know the limitation period in filing the appeal against the Judgment & Award of the MACT. 6. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for both the parties, this court had noted that the applicants had received a copy of the impugned Judgment & Award dated 26.10.2022 on 28.10.2022 and a legal opinion for filing an appeal was also received by the Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. on 09.11.2022. However, the matter was kept pending for 616 days, wherein, the explanation given by the learned counsel for the applicant appears to be due to the fact that even though the applicant was aware of the Judgment & Award and the advice for filing an appeal, no prompt action and the matter was delayed for exchanging correspondence between the Legal Hub, Regional Office, Gauhati and the Divisional Office, Silchar. 7. The explanation regarding the offices closed due to winter vacation etc. holds no weight, especially when the Registry of the Gauhati High Court, Aizawl Bench is not completely closed due to vacation. There is also no documents or any prove to substantiate the claim that the matter was kept pending for almost 4 months in an attempt for the parties to come to an amicable settlement especially when this claim has been denied by the claimant. 8. This court finds it appropriate to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in Page No.# 8/9 Basawaraj & Anr. Vrs Special Land Acquisition Officer (Supra) wherein it was held that:- “It is a settled legal proposition that law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. The court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. "A result flowing from a statutory provision is never an evil. A court has no power to ignore that provision to relieve what it considers a distress resulting from its operation." The statutory provision may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but the court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the same. The legal maxim dura lex sed lex which means "the law is hard but it is the law", stands attracted in such a situation. It has consistently been held that, "inconvenience is not" a decisive factor to be considered while interpreting a statute.” 9. This court also finds it appropriate to refer to the observation of a Co- ordinate Bench of this court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nanda Kanai Pegu & Ors. (Supra) wherein it was held as under:- “It is an admitted fact that applicant is in the business of insurance throughout the country, and as such, it would be wrong to presume that it was not aware about the period of limitation prescribed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for preferring an appeal against an award passed by a Claims Tribunal. In the instant case, the period of limitation has been prescribed by a statute of Parliament, i.e., Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The applicant which is an Insurance Company and which deal with in business of insurance is supposed to know the limitation prescribed for preferring an appeal against award of a Motor Claims Tribunal in motor accident claims case. It is also supposed to devise the internal procedure involved for taking a decision for preferring an appeal in such a manner, so that in case of a decision to prefer an appeal is taken, the same may be preferred within the period of limitation prescribed by law. It cannot take the statutory provision of limitation for granted and give a total go by to the period of limitation so prescribed by the statute, more so, considering the fact that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial and welfare legislation.” 10. Thus this court in view of the above cited judgments and on considering the explanations given by the applicant in totality, finds that no sufficient cause Page No.# 9/9 has been made out for the delay of 616 days in filing the appeal against the impugned Judgment & Award dated 26.10.2022. 11. Accordingly, in view of the above findings, the application for condonation of a delay of 616 days is dismissed and I.A. No. 170/2024 stands disposed of on dismissal. 12. In view of the dismissal of I.A. (Civil) No. 170 of 2024, the connected MAC.App No. 9 of 2024 also stands closed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant