Page No.# 1/3 GAHC030002972025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/79/2025 The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Aizawl VERSUS Sh. Vanneihtluanga and 2 Ors. S/o P Lalthazuala R/o Ratu, Mizoram 2:Asst. Manager Kram Infracon Pvt. Ltd. 3:Sh. Lalremruat Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Johny L Tochhawng Advocate for the Respondent : Mr Reuben Lalrinsanga for R1 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI ORDER 08.09.2026 Heard Mr. Lalhmangaihsanga, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Ms. L K Hmangaihzuali, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1. 2. By way of this interlocutory application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the applicant seeks condonation of 46 days’ delay in preferring the connected appeal Page No.# 2/3 against the judgment and award dated 09.12.2024 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aizawl District, Mizoram, in MACT Case No. 39/2020. 3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the applicant preferred the connected appeal. However, as the appeal could not be instituted within the prescribed period of limitation, there is a delay of 46 days in filing the same, for which the present application has been preferred. 4. The explanation furnished in the application, in substance, is that after receipt of the judgment and award, the matter was initially examined by the applicant’s previous counsel, who furnished his legal opinion. The matter was thereafter processed at different levels of the applicant-Insurance Company, including its Legal Hub and Regional Office, for examination of the judgment and award and for taking a decision regarding filing of an appeal. It is stated that, during such examination, certain issues relating to the computation of compensation were also noticed and necessary instructions were sought. Thereafter, upon a decision being taken to prefer an appeal, the relevant records were forwarded to the Branch Office at Aizawl. The learned counsel for the applicant then obtained the necessary certified copies and collected the relevant documents from the learned Tribunal. The application further explains that there were intervening holidays, the counsel’s absence on account of illness, relocation of his chamber, and certain administrative delays in arranging the statutory deposit and in obtaining approval of the draft appeal from the applicant-Insurance Company. Upon completion of the aforesaid formalities, the connected appeal came to be prepared and instituted, resulting in the delay of 46 days. 5. Mr. Lalhmangaihsanga, learned counsel for the applicant, submits that the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional, but occurred on account of the aforesaid bona fide circumstances and procedural formalities. He accordingly submits that the delay deserves to be condoned in the interest of substantial justice. 6. Ms. L. K. Hmangaihzuali, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1, in her usual fairness, submits that she has received no instruction to oppose the prayer for Page No.# 3/3 condonation of delay. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon consideration of the explanation furnished in the application, this Court is of the view that the applicant has sufficiently explained the delay. The explanation, viewed in its entirety, does not indicate any deliberate or mala fide inaction on the part of the applicant. The delay appears to have occurred on account of the time consumed in obtaining legal opinion, processing the matter at different administrative levels, collecting the necessary records and certified copies, arranging the statutory deposit, obtaining approval of the draft appeal and completing the requisite formalities for institution of the appeal. 8. It is well settled that while considering an application for condonation of delay, the Court is required to adopt a justice-oriented approach and to examine whether the explanation furnished discloses sufficient cause, rather than adopting an unduly pedantic approach, particularly where the delay is not shown to be deliberate or actuated by mala fide. 9. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, and having regard to the explanation furnished, this Court is satisfied that sufficient cause has been shown for the delay of 46 days in preferring the connected appeal. 10. Accordingly, the delay of 46 days in filing the connected appeal is hereby condoned. 11. The interlocutory application stands allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant