1 2025:CGHC:30792 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 624 of 2025 1 - Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office Bilaspur, At Present Near Pandri, Civil And Revenue District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1 - Smt. Sukhiyarin W/o Late Hirduram Sori Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Nayapara, Narayanpur, P.S. Narayanapur, Civil And Revenue District Narayanpur Chhattisgarh 2 - Ku. Anusuiyya D/o Late Hirduram Sori, Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Nayapara, Narayanpur, P.S. Narayanapur, Civil And Revenue District Narayanpur Chhattisgarh 3 - Ku. Anuradha D/o Late Hirduram Sori Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Nayapara, Narayanpur, P.S. Narayanapur, Civil And Revenue District Narayanpur Chhattisgarh District Narayanpur Chhattisgarh 4 - Shailendra S/o Late Hirduram Sori Aged About 14 Years Minor Through His Mother Smt. Sukhiyarin, W/o Late Hirduram Sori, R/o Village Nayapara, Narayanpur, P.S. Narayanapur, Civil And Revenue District Narayanpur Chhattisgarh 5 - Surendra Kumar Netam S/o Pilaram Netam Aged About 22 Years R/o Masora Patel Para Post Girola, P.S.Kondagaon, Civil And Revenue District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh 6 - Pilaram Netam S/o Late Somaruram Aged About 50 Years R/o Masora Patel Para, Post Girola, P.S. Kondgaon Civil And Revenue District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh, District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI Date: 2025.07.08 11:40:40 +0530 2 ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Applicant : Mr. Anupam Dubey, Advocate. For Respondent/s : Mr. P. K. Tulsyan, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Order on Board 07/07/2025 1. This MCC has been preferred by the applicant for restoration of MAC No.509 of 2015 (Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Smt. Sukhiyarin and others). 2. Heard on I.A. No.01/2025, application for condonation of delay in filing of application for restoration. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submit that the aforesaid MAC was filed by the applicant/appellant Insurance Company which was dismissed on 25.01.2023 for want of prosecution. He further submit that earlier counsel representing the Insurance Company did not inform about the fate of MAC No.509 of 2015 and the applicant for the first time came to know about the said dismissal on 29.04.2025 when notice was received by the applicant in the case of execution proceedings, thereafter, instant MCC has been filed. He further submits that cause of delay in filing MCC is bonafide, hence, MCC may be allowed. 4. MAC No.509 of 2015 was listed for hearing on 25.01.2023, but on that date no one appeared for appellant, therefore, the case was dismissed for want of prosecution. The instant MCC has been filed after delay of 821 days, which is a huge delay. During the 3 course of submission learned counsel for the applicant submit that in the said claim case, compensation of Rs.29,78,024/- was passed in favour of the claimant on account of death. Learned counsel for the applicant also informed that in compliance of the aforesaid order an amount of Rs.19 Lakhs was deposited before the Claim Tribunal. When appeal against motor accident claim case is filed, the Insurance Company ought to have vigilant about the proceeding as earning member of claimant’s family had gone, therefore, the amount of compensation granted in their favour is having valuable bearing/precious, therefore, in such appeal non- appearance of counsel of Insurance Company cannot be appreciated, moreover, filing restoration application after huge delay of 821 days cannot be over-looked particularly when no sufficient cause is shown for filing of application after such a huge delay. 5. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy, (2013) 12 SCC 649 has held in paragraphs 21.9(ix) and 21.10(x) as under :- “21.9.(ix) The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the courts are required to weigh the scale of balance or justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go by in the name of liberal approach. 4 21.10.(x) If the explanation offered is concocted or the grounds urged in the application are fanciful, the courts should be vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily to face such a litigation.” 6. In another case, the Supreme Court in the case of Balwant Singh v. Jagdish Singh reported in (2010) 8 SCC 685 in paragraphs 25 and 26 has observed as under : - “25. We may state that even if the term ‘sufficient cause’ has to receive liberal construction, it must squarely fall within the concept of reasonable time and proper conduct of the party concerned. The purpose of introducing liberal construction normally is to introduce the concept of ‘reasonableness’ as it is understood in its general connotation. 26. The law of limitation is a substantive law and has definite consequences on the right and obligation of a party to arise. These principles should be adhered to and applied appropriately depending on the facts and circumstances of a given case. Once a valuable right has accrued in favour of one party as a result of the failure of the other party to explain the delay by showing sufficient cause and its own conduct, it will be unreasonable to take away that right on the mere asking of the applicant, particularly when the delay is directly a result of negligence, default or inaction of that party. Justice must be done to both parties equally. Then alone the ends of justice can be achieved. If a party has been thoroughly negligent in implementing its rights and remedies, it will be equally unfair to deprive 5 the other party of a valuable right that has accrued to it in law as a result of his acting vigilantly.” 7. In instant case, cause of delay shown by applicant/Insurance Company cannot be said to be bonafide, I do not feel inclined to allow I.A. No.01/2025, application for condonation of delay in filing of application for restoration of MAC No.509 of 2015. Hence, the same is rejected. As a result, instant MCC is also dismissed. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Ravi Mandavi