Page No.# 1/3 GAHC030008392025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/226/2025 National Insurance Co. Ltd. R/b the Divisional Manager, Aizawl Division, Aizawl, Mizoram VERSUS Smt Vanlalchhuangi and 4 Ors. W/o Jonathan Lalvengliana Darlong, R/o West Bunghmun, Mamit District, Mizoram Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Jonathan L Sailo Advocate for the Respondent : Mrs. H Lalmalsawmi for R1-R3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI ORDER 19.05.2026 Heard Mr. J. L. Sailo, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Ms. H Lalmalsawmi, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. This interlocutory application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 43 days in preferring the connected appeal against the judgment and award dated 21.07.2025 passed by the learned Member-cum-Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aizawl in MACT Case No. 37/2025. Page No.# 2/3 The applicant has explained the delay in detail. The explanation, in substance, is that following the pronouncement of the impugned judgment and award, the appellant initiated steps for obtaining certified copies of the relevant records and simultaneously explored the possibility of an amicable settlement with the claimants so as to avoid further litigation. Certified copies of the requisite documents were applied for and obtained. Thereafter, negotiations were undertaken between the parties regarding a possible compromise on the quantum of compensation. The materials placed on record indicate that the matter thereafter underwent internal administrative processing at different levels within the appellant-insurance company, including consideration by the Regional Office with regard to the proposed settlement. Although approval was initially accorded for exploring compromise, the settlement negotiations ultimately did not fructify, as the parties could not arrive at mutually acceptable terms. Upon failure of the settlement efforts, approval was granted for filing the appeal, following which the appellant instructed its panel counsel to prepare and institute the same. Learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. J. L. Sailo submits that the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional, but occasioned by bona fide circumstances beyond the applicant’s control. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3, Ms. H Lalmalsawmi fairly submits that she has received no instruction to oppose the prayer for condonation of delay. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the averments made in the application. The explanation furnished discloses that the delay was occasioned on account of bona fide efforts towards amicable resolution of the dispute coupled with the time consumed in internal administrative decision-making. There is nothing on record to suggest deliberate inaction, negligence, or lack of bona fides on the part of the applicant. It is well settled that where sufficient cause is shown and the explanation does not disclose mala fide conduct or intentional delay, a liberal approach ought to be adopted in Page No.# 3/3 the matter of condonation so as to advance substantial justice. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is satisfied that sufficient cause has been made out for condoning the delay. Accordingly, the delay of 43 days in filing the connected appeal stands condoned. The interlocutory application is, accordingly, allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant