1 2026:CGHC:866 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2377 of 2024  Cholamandlam General Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Branch Manager, Vyapar Vihar Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, Through Regional Office Cholamandalam General Insurance Comapany Ltd. Simran Tower 2nd Floor Opposite LIC building Pandri, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1. Mrs. Anita Netam W/o Late Nand Kumar Netam, Aged About 32 Years R/o Ward No. 1, Killapara Dongargaon, Station And Tahsil Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 2. Ku. Kavita Neatam D/o Late Nand Kumar Netam, Aged About 12 Years (Respondent No. 2 Is Minor And Represented Through her Natural Guardian Smt. Anita Netam, W/o Late Nand Kumar Netam). ---- R/o Ward No. 1, Killapara Dongargaon, Station And Tahsil Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 3. Manjit Neatam S/o Late Nand Kumar Netam Aged About 11 Years (Respondent No. 3 Is Minor And Represented Through his Natural Guardian Smt. Anita Netam, W/o Late Nand Kumar Netam). ---- R/o Ward No. 1, Killapara Dongargaon, Station And Tahsil Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 4. Mukesh Kumar Sonboir, S/o Sukhaduram Aged About 42 Years R/o Ward No. 7, Sevtatola Dongargaon, Station And Tahsil Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Ghyanshyam Patel, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 3 : Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Rajendra Sahu, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 07.01 .2026 1. Heard on I.A. No. 02/2024, an application for condonation of delay 2. The Insurance Company has preferred this appeal against the award passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.01.07 14:34:05 +0530 2 Rajnandgaon in Claim Case No. 80/2022 dated 30.09.2023, whereby the learned Tribunal has passed an award to the tune of Rs. 13,01,960/- with interest at the rate of 6% on account of death of one Nand Kumar Netam. 3. Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company would submit that the award was passed by the learned Tribunal on 30.09.2023 and appeal has been preferred with delay of 329 days. He would submit that the Branch Office was communicated outcome of the claim case on 09.10.2023. He would contend that the documents were forwarded to the Head Office on 06.11.2023, and thereafter, approval was accorded. He would submit that brief was handed over to the counsel and appeal was preferred on 27.11.2024. He would submit that the appellant has explained the cause of delay properly. He would pray to condone the delay. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents would oppose. They would submit that the appellant/Insurance Company failed to explain cause of delay properly, and therefore, application (I.A. No. 02/2024) deserves to be rejected. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the application for condonation of delay. 6. Admittedly, award was passed on 30.09.2023 and documents were forwarded to the Branch Office of the Insurance Company on 09.10.2023. It is further pleaded that sanction was accorded by the Head Office of the Insurance Company on 06.11.2023, but this appeal was preferred on 27.11.2024 and the appellant has not explained cause of delay for period of one year. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to various judgments in the matter of Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by LRs. & Others vs. The Special 3 Deputy Collector (LA) reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 513 : 2024 4 SCR 241 : 2024 INSC 286 while dealing with issue of limitation in paras 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23, which are reproduced herein-below:- “19. In Maqbul Ahmad and Ors. vs. Onkar Pratap Narain Singh and Ors, A.I.R. 1935 PC 85, it had been held that the court cannot grant an exemption from limitation on equitable consideration or on the ground of hardship. The court has time and again repeated that when mandatory provision is not complied with and delay is not properly, satisfactorily and convincingly explained, it ought not to condone the delay on sympathetic grounds alone. 20. In this connection, a reference may be made to Brijesh Kumar and Ors. vs. State of Haryana and Ors, 2014 (4) SCALE 50, wherein while observing, as above, this Court further laid down that if some person has obtained a relief approaching the court just or immediately when the cause of action had arisen, other persons cannot take the benefit of the same by approaching the court at a belated stage simply on the ground of parity, equity, sympathy and compassion. 21. In Lanka Venkateswarlu vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.,[2011] 3 SCR 217 : (2011) 4 SCC 363, where the High Court, despite unsatisfactory explanation for the delay of 3703 days, had allowed the applications for condonation of delay, this Court held that the High Court failed to exercise its discretion in a reasonable and objective manner. High Court should have exercised the discretion in a systematic and an informed manner. The liberal approach in considering sufficiency of cause for delay should not be allowed to override substantial law of limitation. The Court observed that the concepts such as ‘liberal approach’, ‘justice- oriented approach’ and ‘substantial justice’ cannot be employed to jettison the substantial law of limitation. 22. It has also been settled vide State of Jharkhand & Ors. vs. Ashok Kumar Chokhani & Ors., AIR 2009 SC 1927, that the merits of the case cannot be considered while dealing with the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 23. In Basawaraj and Anr. vs. Special Land 4 Acquisition Officer, [2013] 8 SCR 227 : (2013) 14 SCC 81, this Court held that the discretion to condone the delay has to be exercised judiciously based upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The expression ‘sufficient cause’ as occurring in Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be liberally interpreted if negligence, inaction or lack of bona fide is writ large. It was also observed that even though limitation may harshly affect rights of the parties but it has to be applied with all its rigour as prescribed under the statute as the courts have no choice but to apply the law as it stands and they have no power to condone the delay on equitable grounds.” 8. In para 26, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pathapati Subba Reddy (supra) summarized the judgments passed in the above stated decisions and the same is reproduced herein-below:- “26. On a harmonious consideration of the provisions of the law,as aforesaid, and the law laid down by this Court, it is evident that: (i) Law of limitation is based upon public policy that there should be an end to litigation by forfeiting the right to remedy rather than the right itself; (ii) A right or the remedy that has not been exercised or availed of for a long time must come to an end or cease to exist after a fixed period of time; (iii) The provisions of the Limitation Act have to be construed differently, such as Section 3 has to be construed in a strict sense whereas Section 5 has to be construed liberally; (iv) In order to advance substantial justice, though liberal approach, justice-oriented approach or cause of substantial justice may be kept in mind but the same cannot be used to defeat the substantial law of limitation contained in Section 3 of the Limitation Act; (v) Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is established for various factors such as, where there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence; 5 (vi) Merely some persons obtained relief in similar matter, it does not mean that others are also entitled to the same benefit if the court is not satisfied with the cause shown for the delay in filing the appeal; (vii) Merits of the case are not required to be considered in condoning the delay; and (viii) Delay condonation application has to be decided on the parameters laid down for condoning the delay and condoning the delay for the reason that the conditions have been imposed, tantamounts to disregarding the statutory provision.” 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Pathapati Subba Reddy (supra) further held that the phrases ‘liberal approach’, ‘justice-oriented approach’ and ‘cause for the advancement of substantial justice’ cannot be employed to defeat the law of limitation so as to allow stale matters or as a matter of fact dead matters to be revived and re-opened by taking aid of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 10. Considering inordinate delay of 329 days and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, I do not find any good ground to allow the application for condonation of delay, accordingly, I.A. No. 02/2024 is hereby rejected. Consequently, appeal also fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant