Molly vs National Insurance Company Ltd

C.S Dias, J

The application is filed to condone the delay of 1330 days in filing the appeal.

2. The petitioner has averred in the affidavit filed in support of the application that although the award was passed on 8.9.2016, her counsel failed to

file the necessary applications to get the certified copy of the award, as the file was misplaced. The petitioner was under the bona fide impression that

the file would be entrusted to the counterpart of the counsel and the appeal would be filed. Nonetheless, later she came to learn that the appeal was

not filed. Hence,a delay of 1330 days has occurred in filing the appeal.

3. The application is vehementally opposed by the respondent, who has filed a counter affidavit, inter alia, contending that the reasons mentioned in

the affidavit filed in support of the application is flimsy and untenable in law. The application is only liable to be dismissed.

4. The law in respect of condonation of delay is well settled in a plethora of decision.

5. In Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr v. Katiji & Ors [(1987) 2 SCC 107], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the expression

'sufficient cause' is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which sub-serves the ends of justice and that a

liberal approach has to be adopted while dealing with applications for condonation of delay.

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd v. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation

and Another [ (2010) 5 SCC 459] has held that Court shall adopt a liberal approach in condoning the delay of short duration and a stricter

approach where the delay is inordinate.

7. Therefore, it is by now trite that a case has to be decided on merits, after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard, rather than dismissing

the same on technicalities or default, but a stricter approach has to be adopted when there is inordinate delay.

8. The petitioner has conceded the fact that her counsel was aware that the award was passed as early as on 8.9.2016, but it was due to the laches

on the part of the counsel that the appeal was not filed within the prescribed time period.

9. Although I am not convinced of the reasons mentioned in the affidavit in support of the application, taking a lenient view in the matter and to

provide the petitioner an opportunity to contest the case on merits, I am of the considered opinion that the application can be allowed by directing the

petitioner to pay a reasonable amount as costs, which would tide over the hardship and prejudice caused to the respondent .

In the result, I allow the application on the following conditions:

(i)Â The petitioner shall deposit/pay an amount of Rs.2000/- as costs to the respondent/learned counsel appearing for the respondent before this Court, within a

period of three weeks from today, and file a memo to the effect.

(ii)Â Only if the memo is filed within the prescribed time, the application will stand allowed and the delay will stand condoned, otherwise, the application will stand

dismissed.

(iii)Â If ultimately the appeal is allowed in favour of the petitioner, she would be dis-entitled for interest for a period of 1330 days.

(iv)Â Post the appeal after three weeks.