Page No.# 1/6 GAHC030006222023 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/143/2023 Cholamandalam M/S General Insurance Company Ltd. R/b Sh Gautam Pradhan, Assistant Manager, M/s Cholamandalam MS GIC Ltd., Guwahati, and Regional Office at Aastha Plaza, 4th Floor, G.S.Road, Opp. S.B.Deorah College, Ulubari, Guwahati, Assam-781007 VERSUS Sh Hrangzela and 3 Ors. F/o Eliza Ramchullova (L), Edenthar, Aizawl, Mizoram Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Roshan Subedi Advocate for the Respondent : Mr. Johny L Tochhawng for R1 & R2 Linked Case : MACApp./10/2023 Cholamandalam M/S General Insurance Company Ltd. R/b Sh Gautam Pradhan Assistant Manger M/S Cholamandalam MS GIC Ltd. Guwahati and Regional Office at Aastha Plaza 4th Floor G.S. Road. Opp. S.B.Deorah College Ulubari Guwahati Assam-781007 VERSUS Sh Hrangzela and 3 Ors. F/o Eliza Ramchullova (L) Edenthar Aizawl Page No.# 2/6 Mizoram 2:Duhremi M/o Eliza Ramcullova (L) Edenthar Aizawl Mizoram 3:Sh Zoremtluanga S/o Khualdawla (L) Zemabawk Aizawl Mizoram 4:The Branch Manager Indus Ind Bank Zarkawt Branch Aizawl Mizoram Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Roshan Subedi Advocate for the Respondent : Mr. Johny L Tochhawng for R1&2 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARLI VANKUNG ORDER Date : 08-04-2025 Heard Mr. Roshan Subedi, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Johny L. Tochhawng, learned counsel for the opposite party. 2. This is an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for the condonation of a delay of 112 days in filing the appeal against the Judgment & Award dated 27.04.2023 passed by the learned Member-cum-Presiding Officer of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Aizawl, Mizoram in MAC Case No. 52/2017. 3. Mr. Roshan Subedi, learned counsel for the applicant submits that being highly aggrieved by the Judgment & Award dated 27.04.2023 passed by the Page No.# 3/6 learned Member-cum-Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in MAC Case No. 52/2017, the applicant filed the appeal on 14th November, 2023 which resulted in a delay of 112 days. The learned counsel submits that the delay was not due to any negligence or laches on the part of the applicant but basically due to the fact that after the copy of the judgment and award came to the knowledge of the applicant, which was received by the applicant sometime in the third week of May, 2023 at Guwahati Office, the applicant informed the Regional Legal Department of the judgment and award, wherein it was discovered by the Regional Legal Department that there are grounds for filing the appeal. However, since the Regional Legal Department did not have the authority to take the decision, sometime in the first week of July, 2023, it was decided to refer the matter to the Head Office to take necessary action. Later, sometime in the second week of July, 2023, the decision was taken by the Head Office for filing the appeal. Later, sometime in the last week of July, 2023 it was decided that an appeal should be filed. The Legal counsel sometime in the last week of August, 2023, was informed to file the appeal. The Legal counsel after going through the documents on the second week of August, 2023 agreed to go ahead and file the appeal. Further time was taken by the Legal counsel to collect the requisite documents which were collected during the second week of September, 2023. Thereafter, several procedures had to be complied with and after officially vetting of the memo of appeal, the same was furnished to the Standing counsel on 27.01.2023. 4. The learned counsel submitted that for the above reasons, the delay was not due to any laches on the part of the applicant and that there are sufficient grounds for setting aside the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal and therefore, the delay of 112 days may be condoned. The learned Page No.# 4/6 counsel has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107, wherein the Apex Court had held that refusing to condone a delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated and that everyday’s delay need not be explained. 5. Mr. Johny L. Tochhawng, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand submitted that the approach of the appellant is very casual, wherein no documents have been enclosed to support the claim or the explanation given by the applicant. He submitted that there is no document to show that the Judgment & Award dated 27.04.2023 was received by the applicant only on the third week of May, 2023. He also submitted that the date for pronouncement of the judgment was duly fixed by the learned Tribunal and therefore, the applicant should have known of the date on which the judgment and award was going to be pronounced. He further submitted that there are no documents to support the claim that the applicant had informed the Legal Department of the Company regarding the judgment and order in the first week of June, 2023 and that even after the copy of the judgment and order was sent to the Legal Department of the Company, there was a delay of almost about 2 (two) months for the Legal Department to refer the matter to the Head Office which is said to be during the first week of July, 2023. The location of the Head Office is not mentioned and there is no document showing the said communication to the Head Office. The applicant has not made any attempt to give a proper explanation of the steps taken after the Head Office decided to file an appeal which is said to be during the second week of July, 2023. The time taken to collect the requisite documents has also not been properly explained, since it Page No.# 5/6 appears that the applicant took the whole month of September, 2023 till 27.10.2023 to collect the requisite documents, draft an appeal whereas it was also stated that the connected documents were already provided to their counsel in the month of August, 2023. 6. The learned counsel submitted that from the steps taken by the applicant, it is seen that the applicant did not take the matter seriously and the delay in filing the appeal was due to the negligence and carelessness on the part of the applicant. No attempt has been made to procure any documentary evidence such as communication letter or email or transaction details to substantiate the submissions made by the applicant. The learned counsel for the respondent has relied on the judgment and order of the Apex Court in Basawaraj & Anr vs Spl. Laq Officer, reported in (2013) 14 SCC 81 (para 15) and the order of this Court in IA(C) No. 133/2017 and IA(C) No. 134/2017 in MAC Appeal No. 40/2017 dated 10.05.2018 in IA(C) No. 134/2024 dated 22.02.2025 and IA(C) No. 131/2017 in MAC Appeal No. 39/2017 dated 10.05.2018, wherein the application for condonation of delay were rejected on finding that reasonable and sufficient reasons for the delay are not made out. 7. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for both the parties, this Court on perusal of the application for condonation of delay made by the applicant, finds that no specific dates have been mentioned and the approach of the applicant appears to be very casual, wherein he has mentioned that the applicant was of the knowledge of the judgment and award in the first week of June, 2023, no dates is mentioned as to the date when he got to know of the judgment and order. The applicant has also casually mentioned that by the first week of July, 2023 a decision was taken that the matter is to be Page No.# 6/6 returned to the Head Office and that sometime in the second week of July, 2023, the decision was taken by the Head Office to file the appeal. There is no date mentioned nor is there any written communication supporting this decision. It is also seen that the Legal counsel sometime in the first week of August had informed the applicant to provide him with all the connected papers. However, it appears that the connected documents could be collected only sometime in the second week of September, 2023. There is no specific date mentioned as to when the drafting was completed before the memo of appeal after vetting was furnished to the Standing counsel on 27.10.2023. This Court finds that no proper explanation or dates that have been mentioned by the applicant. There is also no mention of the date when the certified true copy of the appeal of the impugned judgment and award was applied for or when the certified true copy was received by the applicant. 8. For the above reasons, this Court finds that the approach and attitude of the applicant is extremely casual and appeared that he has not acted promptly with due diligence and thus, on perusal of the application made, this Court finds that the explanation given cannot be said to be sufficient cause for the delay of 112 days in filing the appeal memo. 9. Accordingly, the application for condonation of a delay of 112 days is dismissed and I.A.(Civil) No. 143/2023 stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant