Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CA/7595/2010 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL
APPLICATION - FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY No. 7595 of 2010
In
FIRST
APPEAL (STAMP NUMBER) No. 286 of 2010
=================================================
ORIENTAL
INSURANCE CO LTD, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, SWAGAT, 3RD - Petitioner(s)
Versus
ASHABHAI
PALABHAI MATANG & 2 - Respondent(s)
=================================================
Appearance
:
MR
ANAL S SHAH for Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR PREMAL S RACHH for
Respondent(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) : 2 -
3.
=================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
Date
: 26/08/2010
ORAL
ORDER
The present
Civil Application is filed seeking condonation of delay of 26 days in
filing the First Appeal against the judgement and award dated 31st
July 2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main),
Jamnagar in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.295 of 2001.
The delay is of
26 days. The question which arises for consideration of this Court is
not that delay being so huge that it cannot be condoned bu the
question is, ‘as to whether the procedure prescribed by the Insurance
Company for coming to a conclusion that an appeal is required to be
filed is such that in every matter, there will be delay in filing the
First Appeal.
The case on
hand is possibly the best example, showing that the procedure
prescribed by the Insurance Company is such that no First Appeal can
be filed without delay.
2. The learned
advocate for the Insurance Company submitted that the procedure
followed by the Insurance Company is that after pronouncement of the
judgement and award, the learned advocate appearing for the Insurance
company ha to apply for certified copy. On receipt of the same, he is
supposed to study the same and has to send his opinion to the
concerned Divisional Office stating whether according to him appeal
is required to be filed or not.
Once the
opinion along with papers is received in the Divisional Office from
the advocate on whom Insurance Company relied upon fully and got its
case represented before the Tribunal, the Divisional Office
consisting of legal brains have to form an independent opinion of
their own as to whether appeal is to be filed or not. After that is
done, the matter is referred to ‘ Third Party Claims Hub’,
which is at Ahmadabad. That hub then examines the matter independent
of opinion of learned advocate and the staff of Divisional Office.
After examining the matter (putting distrust on the opinion of the
advocate of the Insurance Company, who appeared before the Tribunal,
and putting distrust on the personnel of the Divisional Office) the
matter is referred to the learned advocate of the High Court to opine
as to whether the Insurance Company shall file an appeal or not and
after obtaining an opinion from the High Court advocate, the hub
undertakes the exercise of deciding to assign the matter to advocate
to file an appeal.
If this is the
procedure to be followed, there is bound to be delay in every matter.
Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that as the procedure laid
down by the company is its own creation, it must take the
consequences of the same. Only because in following the aforesaid
procedure time is taken, it is because in following that procedure
time is taken is no ground to condone the delay.
3. In the
present case, judgement and award was passed on 31st July
2009. The learned advocate representing the Insurance Company applied
for certified copy on 1st August 2009. Certified copy was
ready on 3rd October 2009. It was received by the learned
advocate on the same day, viz. 3rd October 2009. On 12th
October 2009, he forwarded papers along his opinion to the Divisional
Office. The Divisional Office took 23 days to forward the papers to
the Claims Hub at Ahmedabad. The Claims Hub forwarded the papers to
the learned advocate at the High Court on 12th November
2009, who gave his opinion on 26th December 2009 taking as
many as 44 days to opine and it is thereafter that the Claims Hub
instructed the learned advocate of the High Court to file a First
Appeal and in filing that First Appeal delay of 26 days is caused.
There cannot be
any better example of prescribing an unreasonable procedure which is
bound to result in delay. It is good that the Insurance Company did
not think it fit that after opinion of the learned advocate from the
High Court is obtained, who can be said to be interested in filing
that First Appeal, let the matter be referred to Supreme Court
advocate and if the same analogy is applied, he too can be said to be
interested in filing appeal in the Supreme Court. Ultimately, it
comes to that the Insurance Company is prescribing some procedure and
in complying with the said procedure in every matter delay is caused,
and for condonation of that delay in every matter delay condonation
application is filed. This Court is of the opinion that as the
prescribed procedure is the brain child of the company itself, the
company must take consequence thereof. Therefore, this application is
dismissed having found the explanation unsatisfactory.
(RAVI
R. TRIPATHI, J.)
karim
Top