Page No.# 1/8 GAHC030000482025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/14/2025 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Aizawl VERSUS Lalrinchhana Hmar and 2 Ors. S/o H.Liantluanga, R/o Tlungvel Gate Veng 2:Lalrinchhana 3:Zarzolian Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Johny L Tochhawng Advocate for the Respondent : Mr Lalfakawma for R3 Linked Case : MACApp./7/2025 National insurance Co. Ltd. Aizawl VERSUS Lalrinchhana Hmar and 2 Ors. S/o H.Liantluanga R/o Tlungvel Gate Veng 2:Lalrinchhana S/o H.Liantluanga R/o Doordarshan Veng Page No.# 2/8 Lunglei 3:Zarzoliani D/o H.Liantluanga R/o Tlungvel Gate Veng Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Johny L Tochhawng Advocate for the Respondent : Mr Lalfakawma for R3 Linked Case : I.A.(Civil)/15/2025 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Aizawl VERSUS Lalrinchhana and 2 Ors. S/o H.Liantluanga R/o Tlungvel Gate Veng 2:Lalrinchhana S/o H.Liantluanga R/o Doordarshan Veng Lunglei 3:Zarzoliani D/o H.Liantluanga R/o Tlungvel Gate Veng Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Johny L Tochhawng Advocate for the Respondent : Mr Lalfakawma for R3 B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER 12.06.2026 Heard Mr. Johny L Tochhawng, learned counsel for the appellant. Also Page No.# 3/8 heard Mr. Lalfakawma, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This I.A has been preferred seeking condonation of delay of 221 days in preferring the connected appeal, preferred against the impugned judgment & award dated 22.03.2024 passed by the learned MACT, Aizawl, Mizoram in MACT Case No. 22/2019. 3. It is stated in the instant I.A that due to certain bona fide and inadvertent reasons, there has been a delay in preferring the appeal. The cause of the delay has been stated as follows:- “2. That due to bona fide inadvertent reasons, the MAC Appeal is being filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed by laws, which are stated below: a) That the Ld. Tribunal passed the impugned Judgment & Award on 23.03.2024. A copy of the said Judgment & Award dated 23.03.2024 was received by the Applicant on 26.03.2024 and as such 3 days had gone from the said Judgment & Award dated 23.03.2024 unintentionally. b) That pursuant to receiving the said Judgment & Award dated 23.03.2024, the Applicant necessitate a period of 12 days to gather and assemble requisite data and documents including certified copies of the evidence adduced by the witnesses from Page No.# 4/8 the said Ld. Tribunal for appeal purposes. Due to intervening holidays within this time frame extended the duration, culminating in an unintended delay of 15 days from the aforesaid Judgment & Award dated 23.03.2024. c) That Pursuant to completing appeal preparation, the company appointed panel advocate via letter dated. 17.04.2024 for the purpose of filling an appeal before this Hon'ble Court, the said appointment letter was duly received by the panel advocate on 22.04.2024, marking a 10 day interval, as such 25 day had gone from the said Judgment & Award dated 23.03.2024 unintentionally. d) That upon receipt of the appointment letter dated 22.04.2024, for filing an appeal to this Hon'ble High Court, the appointed Advocate regrettably failed to file the appeal due to the family health issues. Thereafter, the Ld. Panel Advocate through telephonic conversation to the Applicant stating that due to family health issues, he further returned the connected file to the Applicant sometime in the month of late September, 2024. In the meantime, the Respondents/Claimants had filed an execution case No.20/2024, A/o MACT Case No. 23/2019. Consequently, a period of 151 days had lapsed since the Judgment & Award dated 23.03.2024. e) That pursuant to gathering requisite information, the Company proceeded to appoint a new panel Advocate for filing Page No.# 5/8 an appeal to the High Court on 26.09.2024. Subsequently, the appointed counsel received the necessary documents on 01.10.2024, thereby inadvertently causing a 188 days delay from the date of Judgment & Award dated. 23.03.2024. f) That the counsel for the Applicant took 3 day for drafting an appeal and in the meantime, the Ld.Panel Advocate send a letter to the Applicant for furnishing a Statutory Deposit amounting to Rs.2,50,00/- as the same is mandatory as per section 173 of MV Act, 1988 and as such 191 days had gone inadvertently from the date of Judgment & Award dated. 23.03.2024. g) That the counsel for the Applicant received a statutory deposit in the form of Cheque bearing No.169142 on 04.12.2024 and such 256 days had gone inadvertently days delay from the date of judgment & Award dated. 23.03.2024. h) The Counsel for the Applicant diligently continued the preparation of the draft appeal from 05.12.2024. However, the commencement of the winter vacation from 14.12.2024 to 12.01.2025 resulted in the suspension of all court activities due to the closure of the Court during this period. The Court was scheduled to resume its functioning only on 13.01.2025. And as such a period of 296 days had gone inadvertently from the date of Judgment & Award dt. 23.03.2024. i) That the Panel advocate had applied for certified copy of the impugned Judgment & Order dt. 23.03.2024 in a Folio format for Page No.# 6/8 the purpose of filling and appeal before the Hon’ble Court on 21.01.2025 and the same was furnished to the Ld. Panel Advocate on 27.01.2025. Further, the Ld. Panel Advocate due to health condition take leave from dt.22.01.25 to dt.24.01.2025 and as such, 310 days had gone inadvertently from the date of Judgment & Award dt.23.03.2024” 4. It is submitted that there was no intentional or willful negligence on the part of the applicant, and that the delay was occasioned due to procedural checks, administrative processes, unforeseen circumstances, and personal difficulties faced by the learned counsel. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Bihar & Ors. v. Kameshwar Prasad Singh & Anr., reported in (2000) 9 SCC 94, and Sheo Raj Singh (Deceased) Through Legal Representatives & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr., reported in (2023) 10 SCC 531. 6. The respondent herein has filed an objection, contending that the appellant was represented by counsel; therefore, it cannot be contended that the appellant was unaware of the pronouncement of the judgment. Further, from the appellant’s own document, i.e., Annexure-5, being the letter dated 26.09.2024, it is revealed that part of the delay was attributed to the Page No.# 7/8 misplacement of the concerned file. However, in the present I.A., it has been stated that the delay was caused by the learned Advocate’s family health issues. 7. It is further submitted that even the statutory deposit cheque was furnished to the applicant only on 27.11.2024, i.e., after a lapse of 57 days, despite there being no legal or practical obstacle preventing the applicant from making the deposit within a week. However, the applicant chose to deposit the statutory amount only after the period of limitation had already expired, which shows that there was no diligence on the part of the appellant. Furthermore, the delay in applying for the certified copy of the judgment was the fault of the appellant himself, and the same has not been satisfactorily explained. 8. Upon perusal of the materials on record as well as the pleadings, it appears that there have been lapses on the part of the applicant/appellant, and a lack of diligence is also apparent. However, at the same time, the appellant is a Government award organization, which are notorious for lethargy, tardiness, and indolence in presenting appeals within the prescribed period. Furthermore, it appears from the record that, in the case under consideration, the insurance policy in question was an “Act Only” policy and did not provide third-party coverage. Therefore, the claimant/respondent was prima facie not entitled to compensation from the Insurance Company, and it is contended that the Page No.# 8/8 impugned judgment has caused a grave miscarriage of justice. 9. In the case of State of Nagaland vs. Lipok Ao & Ors., reported in (2005) 3 SCC 752, the Apex Court has held that if refusal to condone the delay results in a grave miscarriage of justice, it would be a ground to condone the delay. 10. Having regard to the aforesaid aspects of the matter, it is possible that unless the appeal is heard on merits, a grave miscarriage of justice may be occasioned. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, the delay is condoned subject to payment of costs of Rs. 10,000/- within a period of 4 (four) weeks by the applicant/appellant in the Registry of this Court. Upon such deposit, the amount of Rs. 10,000/- shall be disbursed to respondent No. 3 only, who has filed the objection. 12. I.A stands accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant