Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010136742024 2026:GAU-AS:9773 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/2353/2024 RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 19, RELAINCE CENTRE, WALCHAND HIRACHAND MARG, BALLARD ESTATE, MUMBAI 400001 AND ONE OF ITS BRANCH OFFICE, AT BHANGAGARH, G.S. ROAD, GUWAHATI. VERSUS JUBEDA KHATUN AND 2 ORS. W/O ALI HUSSAIN, R/O DA-DHORA, IKARANI GAON, P.O. AND P.S.- DERGAON, PIN- 785764, DIST.- GOLAGHAT, ASSAM. 2:BIRAJ KISHORE SINGH S/O PRIYABARTA NARAYAN SINGH C/O BALAJI PUMP BHANGA BANDA P.S.- KANKSA CITY- KANKSA DIST.- BURDWAN PIN- 713148. 3:SEIKH ALI MORTOJA S/O LATE SEIKH MD. FARHAD VILL.- KHANO P.O.- GALSI DIST.- BURDWAN WEST BENGAL Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K K BHATRA, MS L SHARMA Advocate for the Respondent : MR P K BASU (R-1), MS. K DEY(R-1) Page No.# 2/6 Linked Case : MACApp No. 7717/2024 RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD VERSUS JUBEDA KHATUN AND 2 ORS (H) Advocate for : MR. K K BHATRA Advocate for : appearing for JUBEDA KHATUN AND 2 ORS (H) BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER 17.07.2026 Heard Mr. K.K. Bhatra, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. P.K. Basu, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This is an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 876 days in preferring the connected appeal challenging the Judgment & Order dated 21.11.2019, passed by the learned Member, MACT, Golaghat in MACT Case No. 214/2013. 3. It has taken nearly two and a half years for the applicant to prefer the connected appeal on the sole ground that the offending vehicle was not covered by any insurance policy issued by the applicant, although no such averment was made in the written statement submitted by the applicant/insurance company before the learned Tribunal. The causes for the delay have been stated in the following paragraphs of the instant IA, which are quoted verbatim: Page No.# 3/6 “2. By filing this application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the petitioner has prayed for condonation of 99 days delay beyond the period of limitation in filing the accompanying appeal against the Judgment & Award passed in a motor accident claims case. 5. The petitioner begs to submit that in order to take a decision whether an appeal is to be filed or not, the files are required to be collected from dealing advocate and then it is processed from the policy issuing Branch to the dealing Regional Office and thereafter to the Head Office, who also requires legal opinion from the Company's advocate before coming to a decision and consequently, it is quiet natural that considerable time is spent in movement of the file from one office to another and from one table to another and taking decision thereon. In this case the dealing office of the petitioner Company received the copy of the judgment and award along with the opinion of the advocate on 03.03.2015 and the said Office after completing all formalities sent the entire file to Kolkata Regional Office and all these took time to reach Regional office in the third week of March 2015. Again the Regional Office after completing necessary formalities had sent the entire case record to its Head Office which had reached head office only in second week of April 2015. The Head office officials had deliberated among themselves took advise from their counsel about the next course of action and the said Advocate opined that it was a fit case wherein an appeal be filed by impugning the judgment and order/award. In the said process about a week's time was required and thereafter the officials in the Mumbai head office had deliberated amongst themselves and took the decision to file the appeal. Thereafter office at Mumbai had sent the record to dealing office at Guwahati which had received the file in mid part of May 2015. After completion of correspondences and formalities the papers of the case were sent to the advocate on 29.05.2015, who had other equally important matters to be prepared and attended to. Hence he could deal with this case only after about seven days and some days were required for preparation of the Memo of Appeal, stay petition and the instant petition for condonation of delay. The reasons for delay, as mentioned above, could not have been avoided in view of the circumstances narrated above. Hence in spite of best Page No.# 4/6 efforts made by the Company, the appeal could not be filed within time. 6. The petitioner begs to state that this delay is totally unintentional and has occasioned due to genuine and sufficient cogent reasons and this delay is now required to be condoned so that the appeal filed along with this petition for delay condonation may kindly be taken up for admission hearing after the delay is condoned by this Hon'ble Court." 4. As is evident from the above, the applicant has sought to make out a case for condonation of the delay on grounds that are entirely internal to the applicant. The period of limitation for preferring the appeal is well known to the applicant/insurance company and it is reasonably expected that the applicant/insurance company, which regularly deals with such cases, would device and put in place a system which would enable the applicant/insurance company to prefer the appeal within the time prescribed by law. It is even more so expected from the present applicant as it is a private company and not subject to the lethargic culture of a Government organization. It is only in cases where, despite sincerely proceeding under a set of procedures that are in place as would allow the applicant to prefer the appeal within the prescribed period, for exceptional reasons it is prevented from doing so within such time, that the delay can be condoned. But from the grounds stated in the instant case, it appears that the exact opposite is true and it also appears that the Appellate Court and the relevant statutes are taken for granted by the applicant/insurance company and it is high time that the applicant is disabused of this misguided notion. 5. A coordinate bench of this Court in the ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Shri Rup Nath Brahma Choudhury & Anr, reported in (2017) Supreme (GAU) 165, while dealing with an application for condonation of delay of 99 days had observed as follows: “4. From a bare reading of the herein before quoted statements, it appears that the statements are absolutely vague. The procedures of which there is a mention in Page No.# 5/6 paragraph 4 is not a statutory procedure, but those procedures are manner of internal management of the affairs of the applicant. Therefore, if the applicant devise a procedure of moving the file from one table to the other, the applicant are doing so at their own risk because in the present application in hand, there is no statement showing (i) whether the various tables where the files are routed are in any manner concerned with the decision making process to file the appeal or not, (ii) how many table to table the files were routed, (iii) the time for which each particular table had detained the file. That apart, in the absence of disclosure what was the opinion by the learned advocate conducting the trial, the explanation that the file was sent to the learned advocate practicing in the High Court is not at all convincing. Moreover, there is no statement that the learned advocate conducting the trial had held up the file, it is not understood from the vague statements how much time and importantly, why at all any time was consumed just for the purpose of collecting the file from the said advocate conducting the trial, when the specific statement in paragraph 5 of the present case is that the petitioner company had 'received' the copy of judgment and award along with the opinion of the advocate on 03.03.2015. Moreover, there is no disclosure what were those formalities and how much time was consumed in doing those alleged formalities. Even after getting the advocate's opinion at the end of the applicant's Head Office at Mumbai, their officials once again deliberated amongst themselves to take a decision to file appeal. No dates are mentioned and it is stated that file was sent back to Guwahati in mid part of May, 2015. Again there were correspondence and formalities, without any disclosure as to what were those correspondence and formalities, and the case file was send to their counsel. Then it is further stated that their learned counsel had other important matters to be prepared and attended to, thereby indicating that the present appeal was not 'so important’. 6. The explanations as given in the herein before quoted paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the instant application are not at all found to be satisfactory from a insurer like the appellant, who are in a business of insuring citizens and goods in the Country, have a social responsibility to see that at least they do not become a source of prolongation of a Page No.# 6/6 litigation under the social and beneficial legislation. Accordingly, this court is of the opinion that the reasons assigned as the cause of delay establishes that the delay of 99 days has not been properly or satisfactorily explained. The said causes are held not to constitute just, or proper, or good, or sufficient cause for which the connected appeal could not be filed on time, rather the said statements reflects that the applicant was casual in all stages of decision making process in the Branch level, Regional Office level and in the Head Office level. The present application is a stereotype application, which gives an impression that the applicant had no intention to display any sense of promptitude even where it affects its own interest or that the applicant has taken for granted that delay would always be condoned even if applications are prepared and filed in a casual and routine manner without satisfactorily explaining the delay. Accordingly, the prayer for condonation of 99 days in presenting the connected appeal is rejected.” 6. The facts of the present case and the grounds stated herein are strikingly similar to those in the aforesaid case which was dismissed by the said co-ordinate bench by Order dated 23.02.2017. It was also held in the said case that a majority of the insurance claims are generally on preset pattern and the appellant, who are in the business of insuring risk is supposed to be equipped with the mechanism to devise ways and means to expeditiously challenge the awards to which they do not agree. 7. This Court finds itself in agreement with the aforesaid observation. 8. Accordingly, the prayer for condonation of 876 days in preferring the connected appeal is hereby rejected and the I.A. stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant