Page No.# 1/9 GAHC010212702024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/2351/2025 ORIENTAL INSUANCE COMPANY LTD. A CENTRAL GOVT. UNDERTAKING HAVING ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT GUWAHATI, G.S. ROAD, ULUBARI, GUWAHATI-781007 REP. BY THE MANAGER, GAUHATI REGIONAL OFFICE, UUBARI, GUWAHATI-781007. VERSUS SUPARNA DAS AND 4 ORS W/O. LT. DULU DAS 2:BIKI DAS S/O. LT. DULU DAS 3:SNEHA DAS D/O. LT. DULU DAS ALL ARE R/O. VILL.- GUNAMOYEE ROAD SUSTIPALLY TARAPUR P/O. AND P/S. SILCHAR DIST. SILCHAR ASSAM PIN-788003 OPPOSITE PARTY NO. 3 IS REP. BY OPPOSITE NO. 1 4:SUNIL BAISNAB S/O. GOPAL BAISNAB R/O. VILL.- KHELMA PT.-IV P/O. GUMRAH P/S. KATIGORAG DIST. CACHAR ASSAM PIN-788815. Page No.# 2/9 5:CHIRANJIT BISWAS S/O. CHITTARANJAN BISWAS R/O. SRI RAMPALLY BIDYASAGAR SARANI P/O. P/S.- SILCHAR DIST. CACHAR ASSAM PIN-788001 Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. C MOZUMDAR, MR. S P SHARMA,MS. R D MOZUMDAR Advocate for the Respondent : MR. A BISWAS (R1-R3), MR P K BASU (R1-R3) Linked Case : ORIENTAL INSUANCE COMPANY LTD VERSUS SUPARNA DAS AND 4 ORS ------------ Advocate for : MS. C MOZUMDAR Advocate for : appearing for SUPARNA DAS AND 4 ORS BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ::ORDER :: 09.09.2026 1. Heard Ms. R. D. Mozumdar, learned counsel for the Page No.# 3/9 applicant. Also heard Mr. A. Biswas, learned counsel for the respondent/claimants. 2. This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, has been filed by the applicant, namely, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, praying for condonation of delay of 237 days in preferring the connected appeal, wherein the judgment and award dated 06.11.2023 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cachar, Silchar, in MAC Case No. 339/2016 has been impugned. 3. Ms. R. D. Mozumdar, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that the delay of 237 days in preferring the connected appeal has been occasioned due to reasons which were beyond the control of the applicant and also due to time consumed in administrative processes within the Insurance Company for filing an appeal against a judgment in a claim case. She submits that though the impugned judgment was passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cachar, Silchar on 06.11.2023, however, the legal opinion for preferring an appeal by the concerned counsel was received by the Insurance Company on 01.08.2024, i.e., 268 days after passing of the said judgment. She submits that this was beyond the control of the Insurance Company. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant further submits that after receipt of the legal opinion, the relevant file was prepared on 13.08.2024 and was sent to the Regional Manager of the Insurance Company on 23.08.2024 and thereafter approval for filing the appeal Page No.# 4/9 was granted by the competent authority on 29.08.2024. She further submits that thereafter the file was prepared and handed over to the present counsel on 03.09.2024 and some days were taken for preparation of the memo of appeal and ultimately the appeal was preferred on 01.10.2024. She submits that in the process, 237 days of delay has occasioned. She submits that the said delay was not due to the lapses on the part of the Insurance Company, but due to normal time taken in following the administrative procedures which are required to be followed before preferring an appeal by the Insurance Company. 5. She further submits that there was no deliberate lapse on the part of the Insurance Company in preferring the appeal. She has also submitted that since the applicant/Insurance Company has to handle a lot of appeals, hence, the time consumed in completing the administrative processes before preferring an appeal may not be regarded as intentional lapse by the applicant/Insurance Company. She also submits that the delay occasioned in this case should be looked at with a liberal approach and by taking a justice-oriented approach, the delay of 237 days may be condoned. In support of her submission, the learned counsel for the applicant has cited the following rulings: 1. “State of Nagaland Vs. Lipokao and Others” reported in “(2005)” 3 SCC 752”. 2. “Executive Officer, Antiyur Town Panchayat Vs. G. Page No.# 5/9 Arumugam (Dead) by LRs.”, reported in “(2015) 3 SCC 569”. 6. On the other hand, Mr. A. Biswas, the learned counsel for the opposite party/claimant has vehemently opposed the prayer for condonation of delay of 237 days in preferring the connected appeal. He submits that the Insurance Company has merely stated the facts which have occasioned the delay and has not sufficiently explained the reason for such delay. He submits that by merely stating that the legal opinion by the dealing counsel was given to the Insurance Company after 268 days, the same may not be regarded as explaining the said delay. He further submits that the delay occasioned in processing the matter before preferring an appeal has also not been explained by the Insurance Company. He submits that the Insurance Company has only stated the facts which occasioned the delay without justifying the reasons for the said delay. 7. He further submits that on perusal of the certified copy of the impugned judgment which has been annexed along with this interlocutory application, it appears that though the impugned judgment was passed on 06.11.2023, however, the certified copy of the same was applied for after a period of 6 months, i.e., on 09.05.2024 and no reason for the belated filing of the application for certified copy has been stated by the Insurance Company. 8. He further submits that the averments made in the instant interlocutory application itself indicate that the applicant was not diligent in preferring the delay condonation in preferring the Page No.# 6/9 connected appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. He submits that it is not open for the Insurance Company to ignore the prescribed period of appeal preferred by the law of limitation and approach the Court by filing an appeal as and when it pleases. He submits that the delay occasioned due to the negligence of its officers and its engaged counsel has to be explained by the Insurance Company, which has not been explained by the Insurance Company. 9. He further submits that the Motor Vehicles Act being a beneficial legislation, the claimant to whom compensation has been awarded on occasion of the death of somebody on whom they were dependent may not be deprived of the fruits of the award for more than three years, since the award in this case has been passed on 06.11.2023. He, therefore, submits that the prayer for condonation of delay may be rejected in this case. In support of his submission, he has cited the following rulings: 1. “State of Bihar and Others Vs. Deo Kumar Singh and Others, reported in “(2022) 16 SCC 483”. 2. “ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Shri Rupnath Brahma Choudhury and another”, reported in “2017 2 GLJ 494”. 10. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials on Page No.# 7/9 record. I have also gone through the rulings cited by the learned counsel for both sides in support of their respective submissions. 11. The period of limitation for filing an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is 90 days from the date of the impugned judgment. It appears that in the instant case, the impugned judgment and award was passed on 06.11.2023 and, therefore, the appeal ought to have been filed within a period of 90 days from the said date. However, in the instant case, it appears that even the legal opinion suggesting that an appeal may be preferred against the impugned judgment was rendered much beyond the period of limitation for filing the appeal itself, i.e., after 268 days of the delivery of the judgment and award by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. 12. In the instant case, though the applicant has explained the reasons for delay after the file for preferring the appeal was prepared on 13.08.2024, however, nothing has been stated regarding the period from 01.08.2024 to 13.08.2024. Even if we ignore this period regarding it to be a small period of time, however, the applicant has only stated the fact of delay in receipt of legal opinion from its engaged counsel after 268 days of the passing of the impugned judgment. There is no indication as to what it did to pursue the matter after the judgment was delivered. 13. There is also no indication in the instant interlocutory application regarding the date on which the Insurance Company Page No.# 8/9 came to know about the impugned judgment. In paragraph No. 3 of the instant interlocutory application, the applicant has only stated regarding the fact of obtaining legal opinion for preferring and filing an appeal after 268 days of the date of the impugned judgment. 14. It cannot be disputed that in dealing with the question of condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 the party applying for such condonation has to satisfy the Court that sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application beyond the prescribed period of limitation. It has to cover the whole period of delay. However, in the instant case, the applicant has not explained the reasons for delay which has occasioned in belated rendering of legal opinion by its engaged counsel and it has only merely stated the fact of such delay. 15. Though, there is no dispute over the settled proposition of law that while dealing with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, a liberal and justice-oriented approach is required to be adopted, however, Courts cannot become oblivious of the fact that the successful litigant has acquired certain rights on the basis of the judgment under challenge and a lot of time is consumed at various stages of litigation, apart from the costs involved in pursuing such litigation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. 16. 16. It is also to be taken note of that there is a point beyond which even Courts cannot help a litigant, even when such litigant is an Insurance Company which has been directed to pay the Page No.# 9/9 compensation to the claimant who had to suffer due to a motor vehicular accident because of no fault of theirs. 17. This Court is also of the considered opinion that though a short period of delay which may be occasioned in completing the administrative processes within the Insurance Company for preferring an appeal against an award granted in Motor Accident Claims Tribunal may be condoned, however, this latitude may not be given in a case where the delay involved is an inordinate delay of 237 days, as in this case. 18. For the discussions made and reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs, this Court is of considered opinion that the applicant/Insurance Company has not been able to sufficiently explain the delay of 237 days which has been occasioned in this case in preferring the connected appeal. 19. As such, this interlocutory application is hereby dismissed. 20. Statutory deposit of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the applicant/appellant at the time of filing of the connected appeal may be returned back to the appellant after proper verification. JUDGE Comparing Assistant