Ummer vs Oriental Insurance Co Ltd

C.S Dias, J

The application is filed to condone the delay of 4509 days in filing the appeal.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has filed an affidavit in support of the application stating that although the counsel appearing for

the petitioner before the Tribunal had forwarded the copy of the award in O.P (MV) No.3158/2002 to him, due to the shifting of the office, the case

file was misplaced. It was only in the last week of October 2020, when the parties contacted the counsel, that he became aware that the case bundle

was misplaced. Immediately, he conducted a search and traced out the case file and the award. In the said process, a delay of 4509 days has

occurred in filing the appeal.

3. The application is vehementally opposed by the respondent, who has filed a detailed counter affidavit. The respondent has averred in the affidavit

filed in support of the application that there is grave laches on the part of the petitioner in not preferring the appeal within the prescribed time period.

Hence 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 learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has conceded that the award was forwarded to him as early as on 22.12.2007. Nevertheless, the

appeal was preferred only on 30.10.2020 after a lapse of nearly 13 years.

10. Although the reasons assigned in the affidavit are not at all that convincing and satisfactory, considering the ratio in the afore-cited decisions and

taking a lenient view in the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the application can be allowed by directing the petitioner to pay a reasonable

amount as costs and ordering that the petitioner would be dis-entitled for interest during the period of delay, if the appeal is allowed; 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.10,000/- 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 and compensation is enhanced, he would be dis-entitled for interest for a period of 4509 days.

(iv)Â Post the appeal after three weeks.