Page No.# 1/6 GAHC020002042025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/54/2025 THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. HAVING ITS REGISTERED ORIENTAL HOUSE A-25/27, ASAF ALI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110002 AND REGIONAL DIVISIONAL OFFICES IN SEVERAL PLACES, INCLUDING A REGIONAL OFFICE AT GUWAHATI,ASSAM AND DIVISIONAL OFFICE AT DIMAPUR, IN THE STATE OF NAGALAND VERSUS SMTI. KHUMRO AND 2 ORS D/O A THINGMONG , R/O ALEMPANG WARD MOKOKCHUNG, NAGALAND 2:SMTI. IMTICHILA W/O NOKLEM KONYAK R/O LIJABA LIJEN WARD MOKOKCHUNG TOWN NAGALAND. (DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE BEARING NO. AS-10-2036 I10 MAGNA) 3:SHRI YAPAN KONYAK S/O NOKLEM KONYAK R/O SALANGTEM WARD MOKOKCHUNG NAGALAND (OWNER OF VEHICLE BEARING NO. AS-10-2036 I10 MAGNA Advocate for the Petitioner : LAKNYEI PHOM, Advocate for the Respondent : , Page No.# 2/6 BEFORE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER ORDER Date : 18-09-2025 This is an application under section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 praying for condonation of delay of 554 days in filing the connected MAC.Appeal. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant/appellant Ms. Kim Pienyu and also heard Mr. Apok Pongener, learned coun- sel for the claimant/respondent Nos. 1, 4, 5 and 6 and Mr. Wati Jamir, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. By filing this instant application, the applicant/appel- lant has sought for condoning the delay of 554 days in filing the connected appeal against the judgment and award dated 17.10.2023 in MACT Case No. 32/2022. The causes for delay are mainly set out at paragraph 7 of the application. It is stated that after receiving the judg- ment dated 17.10.2023 through the Divisional office at Dimapur, the same was forwarded to the Regional office at Guwahati for approval/advice in filing the Appeal on 27.10.2023. It is stated that the Chief Regional Manager on receiving the file took legal advice from an Advocate and the Advocate gave his legal opin- ion on 25.11.2023 causing a delay of 30 days. On receiving the legal opinion, the Appellant Regional office in Guwahati ap- pointed their empanelled counsel to file an appeal before the Gauhati High Court Kohima Bench on 19.01.2024 but the coun- sel returned the file on 14.02.2024 to the Divisional Office at Page No.# 3/6 Dimapur causing a delay of 83 days. On receiving the file, the Divisional Office Dimapur send a letter to the appellant regional office in Guwahati to entrust/engage another counsel on 29.02.2024 after which the appellant Regional office in Guwahati appointed another empanelled counsel on 01.03.2024 based in Kohima to take up the appeal. But after keeping the file for al- most 9 months, the appellant received the counsel’s opinion vide dated 21.11.2024 along with the file causing delay of 280 days. Upon receiving the file by the Divisional office at Dimapur, the files were forwarded on 25.11.2024 asking the appellant Re- gional office in Guwahati to appoint another counsel to file ap- peal. In the meantime, the appellant were looking for a fresh empanelled counsel to represent the case thereby causing a de- lay of 44 days thereby a total number of 437 days delay was caused by the empanelled counsel. Finally, the appellant Re- gional office in Guwahati appointed the present counsel as the new counsel on 26.02.2025. The files were received by the newly appointed counsel on 07.03.2025. Thereafter, the counsel furnished her legal opinion to prefer appeal against the im- pugned judgment and returned the file along with the petition to the company on 05.04.2025 to obtain signatures and for neces- sary formalities. The Regional office in Guwahati forwarded the entire file to its Divisional office Dimapur on 14.04.2025 for pre- ferring the appeal and during the process, there has been a de- lay of 75 days. The instant appeal was finally filed on 22.04.2025 thus, there has been a delay of 554 days in filing the instant ap- peal. Page No.# 4/6 The learned counsel for the applicant/appellant has relied on the case of Ram Kumar Gupta & Ors vs Har Prasad and another reported in (2010) 1 SCC 391 and in the case of Rafiq & Another vs Munshilal & Another reported in (1981) 2 SCC 788 to support her contention that when delay is due to the negligence of the counsel, the party should not be made to suffer for inac- tion, deliberate omission or misdemeanor of his counsel. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1,4,5 and 6 has filed his objection to the present application and at the outset has submitted that the applicant has suppressed ma- terials facts as Execution petition has already been filed in con- nection with the present MAC.Appeal and the same is pending before the Executing Court. It is stated that on 16.08.2024 when the Execution case was listed one Mr. Edison Mathai had ap- peared for the applicant/appellant but thereafter on subsequent dates when the Execution case was fixed none appeared for the appellant. By order dated 12.12.2024, the Executing Court had allowed the claimants/respondents to serve notice by publishing in the local daily and the same was complied and such notices was published in the 17th Decemebr 2024 issue of Morung Ex- press. Therefore, it is submitted that the applicant/appellant were all along aware about the proceedings but they have cho- sen to remain silent about these facts in the application and also in the appeal. Regarding the objection, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the appellant has failed to explain the delay from 26.11.2023 to 18.01.2024 i.e. 54 days before 19.01.2024 when empanelled counsel was allegedly appointed. Page No.# 5/6 When the file was returned on 14.02.2024 again from 15.02.2024 to 28.02.2024 there is no explanation for 14 days. Again from 01.03.2024 when another counsel was appointed till 21.11.2024, the appellant remained silent for long 9 months. In fact the appellant Insurance Company being a company that deals with public policies is required to act promptly and effi- ciently when they are supposed to deal with public money but while the file was pending before the empanelled counsel in Ko- hima, no action was initiated by the appellant company either to approach the empanelled counsel or enquire about the file but waited and allowed time to run against them. Again from 25.11.2024 till 26.02.2025, the appellant has failed to explain the delay and no explanation has been made in the application. Therefore there is inordinate delay in filing the connected Mac.Appeal which is not explained and as such prays that the same may be dismissed. This Court has given due consideration to the sub- mission of the opposing counsel and also perused the pleadings in detail. On going through the explanation provided in para- graph 7 of the application there are unexplained gaps specially in between 25.11.2023 to 19.01.2024 and also from 25.11.2024 till 26.02.2025. But most of all it is difficult to comprehend that an Insurance Company which is dealing with public money should await the opinion of the empanelled counsel for almost 9 months from 01.03.2024 to 25.11.2024 without even enquiring about the status of the file. The facts of the present case can be distinguished from the judgments relied upon by the petitioner Page No.# 6/6 inasmuch as in the judgments relied, the counsel were already appearing on the party’s behalf before the Court but they have failed to appear for several dates and hence, the writ petition had been dismissed for non prosecution and the Court had re- stored the same due to the fact that it was due to the inaction of the counsel and not the party concerned. However, in the present case, the delay was caused before the condonation ap- plication was filed before this Court. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the delay of 554 days has not been explained properly and suffi- cient cause has not been shown for the delay. Accordingly, the application is dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE Comparing Assistant