N.I.A.CO.LTD. vs PRAFULLA KU.SAHOO
- Court
- Odisha High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.218 of 2013
CNR No. ODHC010005042013
(In the matter of application under Section 173(1) of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988).
New India Assurance Co.
Ltd., Cuttack
Appellant
…
-versus-
Prafulla Kumar Sahoo &
another
… Respondents
For Appellant : Mr. G.P. Dutta, Advocate
For Respondents : Mr. P.K. Mishra, Advocate
(R-2)
CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:10.11.2026 (ORAL)
G. Satapathy, J.
MACA No.218 of 2013 & Misc. Case No.1887 of 2013
1. This judgment shall not only dispose of the
Appeal , but also the Misc. Case No.1887 of 2013 filed
U/S.5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of
delay of 64 days in preferring the Appeal to challenge
the impugned judgment dated 05.10.2012 passed by
nd
the learned 2 M.A.C.T., Cuttack (in short, “the
Tribunal”) in Misc. Case No.1305 of 1998 directing the
New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Cuttack-cum-Appellant
MACA No.218 of 2013 Page 1 of 9
herein (in short, “the insurer”) to pay a sum of
Rs.27,000/- together with simple interest @ 6% per
annum w.e.f. the date of filing of the claim application
on 23.12.1998 till its actual realization to the
claimant-R2 within one month thence.
2. The facts in this case, being largely undisputed
are not reiterated to avoid prolixity, but this Appeal
has been filed with a delay of 64 days as claimed by
the Appellant and accordingly, the Appellant in order
to condone the aforesaid delay has filed M.C. No. 1887
of 2013, which should be considered first.
3. Heard, Mr. G.P. Dutta, learned counsel for the
Appellant and Mr. Pradeep Kumar Mishra, learned
counsel for R-2 and perused the record. Notice against
R-1 stands dispensed with in view of the provision
under Order XLI Rule 14(4) of the CPC, since he being
in
the owner of the offending vehicle was set ex-parte
the proceeding before the learned Tribunal.
4. Admittedly, there is a delay of 64 days in filing
the Appeal, but the grounds under which the Appellant
MACA No.218 of 2013 Page 2 of 9
seeks for condonation of delay are set forth at
paragraph Nos-3 to 8 in M.C. No. 1887 of 2013 which
are reiterated as under: -
“3. That after the judgment was passed; the
Appellant office has received the free copy of the
impugned judgment on 08.10.2012.
4. That after receipt of the judgment, the same
was forwarded to the counsel for opinion and the
Counsel submitted his opinion vide opinion: dtd:
27.01.2013.
5. That after receipt of the opinion, the Rourkela
Divisional office prepared the note and after
obtaining necessary Administrative Sanction
forwarded the file to the Regional office for filing
appeal.
6. That the Regional office after receipt of the
file again processed it and after obtaining
necessary Administrative sanction from the
competent Authority, forwarded it to the Counsel
for filing appeal.
7. That the counsel after receipt of the file
immediately intimated the Regional office to
send the certified copies of depositions and
exhibits but as the same was not received
immediately, in order to avoid further limitation
the appeal is filed.
8. That in the process, there has been a delay
of about 64 days in filing appeal.”
5. It is an admitted fact that the Appeal was filed
way back in 2013, but the same has not been
prosecuted diligently by the Appellant in addition to
the delay in filing the Appeal. There is in fact no
MACA No.218 of 2013 Page 3 of 9
quarrel over the position of law that an applicant can
establish “sufficient cause” for not filing an Appeal
within the prescribed statutory time limit, but the
Court while dealing an application for condonation of
delay should adopt a pragmatic approach to promote
justice, however, the expression of “sufficient cause”
cannot be stretched to cover the cases of absolute
apathy, utter negligence or institutional complacency.
What cannot be lost sight of is that the corporate
entities like the Appellant in this Appeal cannot use the
internal administrative mis-management or slow
bureaucratic movement or delay in getting
approval/sanction to file litigation, as a shield to
bypass the law of limitation. The law applies uniformly
and large corporate entities or Government bodies do
not enjoy a special status or a longer limitation period
than an ordinary citizen. Examining the present case
on these parameters, the explanation provided by the
insurer is entirely unconvincing and structurally
deficient and the application for condonation of delay
lacks precise chronological details and it fails to
MACA No.218 of 2013 Page 4 of 9
explicitly state the reasons for the delay. Additionally,
what cannot be disputed that the present Appeal
challenges an award of the year 2012, which was
passed granting compensation to the injured claimant
for an accident of the year 1998, but there is no
sincere effort on the part of Appellant for early
disposal of the petition for condonation of delay in
filing the Appeal.
6. In the context of condonation of delay, this
Court is also considered it apposite to refer to the
decision in Post Master General and others Vrs.
Living Media India Ltd. and another; (2012) 3
SCC 563, wherein the Apex Court in paragraph-29 has
explicitly stated and observed as under: -
29. In our view, it is the right time to inform
“
all the Government bodies, their agencies and
instrumentalities that unless they have
reasonable and acceptable explanation
for the delay and there was bona fide
effort, there is no need to accept their
usual explanation that the file was kept
pending for several months/ years due to
considerable degree of procedural red
tape in the process . The Government
Departments are under a special obligation to
ensure that they perform their duties with
diligence and commitment. Condonation of
MACA No.218 of 2013 Page 5 of 9
delay is an exception and should not be used
as an anticipated benefit for the Government
Department. The law shelters everyone under
the same light and should not be swirled for
the benefit of a few.”
7. In this situation, condoning the unexplained
delay by way of liberal approach in this Appeal at this
point of time after a gap of 13 years without the same
being prosecuted diligently would just like paying
premium on the institutional latches or negligence
attributable/imputable to a Public Sector Company like
the Appellant in this Appeal for its sheer gross
negligence and utter apathy towards poor claimant. In
other words, mere administrative negligence cannot
constitute a “sufficient cause” and these assertion
regarding internal files moving from one table to other
table do not fulfill the legal requirements of explaining
delay. In view of the above facts and circumstance
and on consideration of the averments taken in the
application for condonation of delay, this Court does
not find any reasonable explanation as offered by the
insurer to condone the delay, but condoning such
unmitigated delay without a legitimate day-to-day
MACA No.218 of 2013 Page 6 of 9
breakdown and without having any reasonable
explanation, it would completely frustrate the principal
objective of the Limitation Act, which is founded on
public policy to ensure finality to the litigation and
protect legal rights from enduring vulnerability. In this
situation, the Latin maxim which
“Dura lex sed lex”
means the law is harsh but it is the law stands
attracted to the case of the Appellant-insurer. The
aforesaid Latin maxim epitomizes that valid laws must
be followed and enforced strictly, even if the outcome
is severe, unfair, or inconvenient to a party in a
specific case. Consequently, this Court finds that the
Appellant-insurer has completely failed to demonstrate
“sufficient cause” within the meaning of Section 5 of
the Limitation Act and the application lacks merit and
is a clear example of gross institutional negligence.
8. Further, the Appellant has filed M.C. No. 570 of
2013 U/O.41 Rule-27 of the CPC to adduce additional
evidence to accept the schedule copy of the policy as
additional evidence, but the Appellant-Insurer had in
MACA No.218 of 2013 Page 7 of 9
fact pleaded inter alia the following at paragraph-12 of
its written statement before the learned Tribunal: -
“12. That the policy number and valid
date which has been mentioned by the
claimant in claim petition i.e. 28.10.99 is
totally false. As because the valid date has
been lapsed prior to some days before the
alleged accident.”
It, therefore, appears that the Appellant
although being aware of such facts has not adduced
any evidence before the learned Tribunal to support its
claim. The Appellant, however, right now wants to
patch up its lacuna by way of additional evidence, but
law is fairly well settled that the provision for
additional evidence is never meant to patch up any
lacuna. In addition, the Appellant has not been able to
reasonably explain the delay in preferring the Appeal.
Hence, I.A. No. 570 of 2013 stands dismissed.
9. In the result, the M.C. No. 1887 of 2013 filed
for condonation of delay of 64 days is, hereby,
dismissed. As a consequence thereof, MACA No.218 of
2013 stands dismissed as barred by law of limitation
at the stage of admission, but no order as to costs.
MACA No.218 of 2013 Page 8 of 9
Ergo, the Appellant-Insurer is directed to pay the
compensation amount together with the accrued
interest thereon as ordered by the learned Tribunal to
the claimant-R2.
10. Since the Appellant has already deposited a
sum of Rs.13,500/- towards the statutory deposit in
this Appeal on 03.05.2013, the aforesaid statutory
deposit together with the accrued interest thereon be
paid to the claimant-R-1 and the Appellant is further
directed to deposit the differential amount by
deducting the statutory deposit together with the
accrued interest thereon from the original award with
interest as ordered before the learned Tribunal within
eight weeks hence for its disbursal to the claimant-R-
1. The Registry is, hereby, requested to send the
statutory deposit together with the accrued interest
thereon to the concerned Tribunal for its disbursal to
the claimant-R-1.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SUBHASMITA SASMAL
Designation: Sr. Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 12-Nov-2026 14:57:45
(G. Satapathy)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
th
Dated the 10 day of November, 2026/S.Sasmal
MACA No.218 of 2013 Page 9 of 9