New India Assurance Company Limited vs Syed Jaheera and Others

P.S. Narayana, J.—Heard Sri Kota Subba Rao, the Counsel representing the petitioner-New India Assurance Company Limited and Sri D.V. Reddy, the Counsel representing the 5th respondent-owner of the vehicle.

This civil miscellaneous application is filed for condonation of delay of 163 days in filing the appeal in O.P. No. 843 of 1998, dated 31-12-2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Guntur. The reasons had been explained in paras 2 to 5 of the affidavit filed in support of the application. It was stated that in the above case the judgment was pronounced on 31-12-2001 and the copy application was filed on 3-1-2002 and stamps were called for on 14-2-2002 and deposited on 14-2-2002, copy was made on 15-2-2002 and delivered on 18-2-2002 and the Appeal has to be preferred on or before 13-5-2002. It was also stated that they have asked to ascertain the financial status of the owner of the vehicle also by the learned Counsel and they had requested the local office, Guntur and they had appointed one Mr.Shaik Ahmed Sharief as Investigator in that regard and he had also submitted his report only on 26-9-2002 which was received by them on 9-10-2002. In this process, there was a delay of 163 days in filing the appeal and in view of the fact that this delay was caused for the reasons beyond their control as explained above. Hence, the delay of 163 days may be condoned.

Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned Counsel for petitioner had submitted that this is an appeal preferred by the New India Assurance Company Limited and the procedural formalities had to be complied with and the administrative delay in preferring appeals after obtaining necessary opinion and also after following the process, is but common and natural and in the light of the facts and circumstances explained in detail, the delay of 163 days may be condoned.

Per contra, Sri D.V. Reddy, Counsel representing the 5th respondent-owner of the vehicle, had opposed stating that the reason given will not fall within the meaning of sufficient cause u/s 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and hence, the applications are liable to be dismissed. The learned Counsel also further submitted that the allegations made in para 5 of the affidavit filed in support of the application are routine allegations which will be made in cases of this nature and hence, since the appellant-New India Assurance Company failed to explain sufficient cause by giving convincing reasons, the application is liable to be dismissed.

Heard both the Counsel.

The facts had been explained supra, and need not be repeated again. The appellant is the New India Assurance Company Limited, represented by the Branch Manager. Apart from giving the dates, it was also specifically stated that the Company had requested the local office at Guntur and they have appointed one Mr. Shaik Ahmed Sharief as Investigator in relation to ascertainment of the financial status of the owner of the vehicle also. In the question of ascertaining the liability and also while taking a decision whether to prefer an appeal or not, these are relevant questions in the opinion of the appellant-Company and hence in the light of such reasons which had been given, it cannot be said that the sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 5 of Limitation Act had not been explained at all. It is no doubt true that the Insurance Companies are expected to be more careful and cautious in preferring the appeals within time as far as possible. But however, there may be cases because of the reasons beyond the control of the concerned officials or because of the delay in obtaining the opinion or any other delay in the administrative process. If such delay caused is not condoned, the Insurance Company definitely will suffer and it is needless to say that the result will be affecting the public money and the public interest. It is pertinent to note that in between consideration of the sufficient cause u/s 5 of the Limitation Act and also the involvement of the public money and the public interest, in cases of this nature, in my considered opinion, a balance may have to be maintained and all the facts and circumstances are to be weighed. It is also brought to my notice that the present civil miscellaneous appeal is filed u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, deals with appeals and the proviso to Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (2) specifies as hereunder:

"Provided further that the High Court may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of 90 days, if it is specified that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal in time."

It is pertinent to note that the word or expression used u/s 5 of the Limitation Act and also the second proviso under Sub-section (1) of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is "sufficient cause". However, it was contended that the word or expression "sufficient cause" as used in the second proviso in Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 may have to be construed on a different footing in comparison with the expression "sufficient cause" employed in Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to express any opinion on this aspect at this juncture.

In view of the facts and circumstances which had been explained, I am of the considered opinion that the delay of 163 days is liable to be condoned, but however subject to the payment of costs of Rs. 250/- to Sri D.V. Reddy, the Counsel representing 5th respondent-the owner of the vehicle, within a period of four weeks.

The Civil Miscellaneous Petition is ordered accordingly.