N.I.A.CO.LTD vs SUSAMA MISHRA

MACA/69/2008
ODHC010010412008
2026:OHC:282
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.69 of 2008
CNR No. ODHC010010412008


(In the matter of application under Section 173(1) of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988).

The New India Assurance Co.
Ltd., Cuttack
Appellant
…
-versus-

Susama Mishra & Another … Respondents


For Appellant : Mr. P. Sinha, Advocate

For Respondents :

CORAM:
JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT: 06.11.2026

G. Satapathy, J.

MACA No.69 of 2008 & MC No.169 of 2008

1.
This judgment shall not only dispose of
the instant Appeal, but also the application filed U/S.5
of the Limitation Act in MC No.169 of 2008 seeking for
condonation of an inordinate delay of 654 days in
preferring the Appeal against the impugned judgment
th
dated 10.04.2006 passed by the learned 4 Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Puri (in short, the “Tribunal”)
MACA No.69 of 2008
Page 1 of 11

in Misc. Case No.67/245 of 96/92 awarding
compensation of Rs.42,000/- together with interest @
7.5% per annum w.e.f. date of filing of the claim
application on 09.03.1992 till its actual realization
within one month thence to the claimant.
2.
Heard, Mr. Pratap Aditya Sinha, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Mahitosh Sinha,
learned counsel for the appellant, but notice issued
against R-1 & R-2 remain unserved with postal
endorsement no such addressee and insufficient
address. Since the appeal is filed with a delay of 654
days, this Court wants to consider the grounds for
condonation of delay at first before allowing the
appellant for re-issuance of summons, since the
appeal is pending w.e.f. 28.01.2008 and in the
meantime more than 18 years 10 months have
elapsed.
3.
After having considered the rival
submissions and upon perusal of record, there appears
no dispute about the Appellant-insurance company
MACA No.69 of 2008
Page 2 of 11

filing the Appeal with delay of 654 days, and the
grounds put forth for condonation of such delay are
stated in paragraphs-4 of the MC, which runs thus: -
a. That though the judgment was
“
pronounced on 10.4.2006, the appellant-
insurance company was prosecuting its
remedy by filing review/recall petition with a
bonafide impression that the Learned Tribunal
would consider the prayer of the appellant
company and recall/review the order and
exonerate the appellant from the liability.

b. That sometime was consumed in
prosecuting the review/recall petition for
which the delay has been caused.

c. That even though the recall/review
petition was finally dismissed on 09.02.07,
the Divisional Office, Bhubaneswar sought for
further advice from their higher authority as
to what further step would be taken by the
insurance company to protect its interest.

d. That sometime was required in the
Divisional Office, Bhubaneswar to process the
file, arrange the papers and transmit the
same to the Regional Office seeking their
advice in the matter, which was done during
nd
2 week of Jan, 2007.

e. That the Regional Office,
Bhubaneswar also required some
considerable time to peruse the record and
process the file for giving advice to prefer
appeal through Cuttack D.O. II.

f. That the Regional Office after taking
appropriate decision sent the entire case
record to their Cuttack D.O.II on 22.1.08 for
preferring appeal.
MACA No.69 of 2008
Page 3 of 11

g. That the Cuttack D.O.II received the
file on 23.01.08 and after arranging the
relevant documents transmitted the same on
25.1.08 to their counsel for filing appeal .

h. That 26.1.08 and 27.1.08 being
Saturday and Sunday, the appeal was filed on
28.1.08 without any further delay.”

4.
It is, however, submitted on behalf of the
Appellant that the delay was neither intentional nor
deliberate; rather it was due to the reason beyond the
control of the Appellant and, accordingly, it is prayed
to take a liberal approach in condoning the delay.
5.
There is in fact no 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. One of
the grounds under which the Appellant seeks for
condonation of delay in this case is for arranging
MACA No.69 of 2008
Page 4 of 11

documents, but in the context of arranging
documents, this Court considers it profitable to refer to
the decision in State of Madhya Pradesh Vrs.
Bherulal; (2020) 10 SCC 654 , wherein the
unavailability of the documents and the process
of arranging documents have been advanced as
reasons for condonation of delay, but rejecting the
aforesaid pleas, the Apex Court has refused to
condone the delay 663 days and dismissed the SLP by
reiterating the principle as laid down in Post Master
General and others Vrs. Living Media India Ltd.
and another; (2012) 3 SCC 563. It is also not in
dispute that what document(s) was/were arranged
has/have never been specifically stated in the
application for condonation of delay, but a mere bald
statement like in this case that after arranging
documents, the Appeal is filed; a liberal approach
cannot be adopted. There cannot be any discrimination
for adopting different method(s) in considering the
condonation of delay, but the Courts absolutely treat
everyone in the same standard of scale, be it a
MACA No.69 of 2008
Page 5 of 11

corporate body or a private individual or a privileged
person. Accordingly, the Government bodies, large
corporation, and Tech Savvy entities are to be
considered in the same legal standard as ordinary
citizens in the matter of condonation of delay,
however, the corporate entities like the Appellant in
this Appeal cannot use the internal administrative mis-
management, misplacement of files/documents or
slow bureaucratic movement or delay in getting
approval/sanction to file a 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. In Pathapati Subba Reddy
(Died) by Legal Representatives and others Vrs.
Special Deputy Collector (LA); 2024 SCC OnLine
SC 513 / (2024) 12 SCC 336 , the Apex Court
emphasized that the discretion U/S.5 of the Limitation
Act must be exercised judiciously, while summarizing
the followings in paragraph-28 for consideration of
application for condonation of delay: -
MACA No.69 of 2008
Page 6 of 11

On a harmonious consideration of the
“28.
provisions of the law, as aforesaid, and the
law laid down by this Court, it is evident that:
28.1. Law of limitation is based upon
public policy that there should be an end
to litigation by forfeiting the right to
remedy rather than the right itself ;
28.2. A right or the remedy that has not
been exercised or availed of for a long
time must come to an end or cease to
exist after a fixed period of time ;
28.3. The provisions of the Limitation Act
have to be construed differently, such as
Section 3 has to be construed in a strict
sense whereas Section 5 has to be construed
liberally;
28.4. In order to advance substantial justice,
though liberal approach, justice-oriented
approach or cause of substantial justice may
be kept in mind but the same cannot be used
to defeat the substantial law of limitation
contained in Section 3 of the Limitation Act;
28.5. Courts are empowered to exercise
discretion to condone the delay if sufficient
cause had been explained, but that exercise
of power is discretionary in nature and
may not be exercised even if sufficient
cause is established for various factors
such as, where there is inordinate delay,
negligence and want of due diligence;
28.6. Merely some persons obtained relief in
similar matter, it does not mean that others
are also entitled to the same benefit if the
court is not satisfied with the cause shown for
the delay in filing the appeal;
MACA No.69 of 2008
Page 7 of 11

28.7. Merits of the case are not required
to be considered in condoning the delay ;
and
28.8. Delay condonation application has to
be decided on the parameters laid down for
condoning the delay and condoning the delay
for the reason that the conditions have been
imposed, tantamount to disregarding the
statutory provision.”

6.
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 explicitly state the
reasons for the delay. In the context of condonation of
delay, this Court is also considered it apposite to refer
to the decision in Post Master General (supra) ,
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
MACA No.69 of 2008
Page 8 of 11

Departments are under a special obligation to
ensure that they perform their duties with
diligence and commitment. Condonation of
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.
What is interesting is that probably the
insurer woke up from the deep slumber only to end up
with this Appeal with delay of such long duration. In
this situation, condoning the unexplained delay of such
a long duration by way of liberal approach 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
claimants. 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 an inordinate delay. In
view of the above facts and circumstance and on
consideration of the averments taken in the
MACA No.69 of 2008
Page 9 of 11

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
immense or unmitigated delay without a legitimate
day-to-day breakdown and without having any
reasonable explanation, it would completely frustrate
the principal objective of the Limitation Act, which is
sounded on public policy to ensure finality to the
litigation and protect legal rights from enduring
vulnerability. In this situation, the Latin maxim
“Dura
which means the law is harsh but it is
lex sed lex”
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. Hence, delay of such a long duration
MACA No.69 of 2008
Page 10 of 11

cannot be condoned merely because it is stated in the
application that the delay was on account of arranging
the documents and processing the file. Hence, it is
ordered.
8.
The MC No.169 of 2008 for condonation of
delay of 654 days is, hereby, dismissed. As a
necessary consequence, MACA No.69 of 2008 stands
dismissed as barred by law of limitation at the
admission stage. No order as to costs. The statutory
deposit together with the accrued interest thereon be
refunded to the insurer upon production of proof of
deposit of such modified compensation.

(G. Satapathy)
Judge








Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
th
Dated the 6 day of November, 2026/Jayakrushna
Digitally Signed
Signed by: JAYAKRUSHNA DASH
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Kataka
Date: 09-Nov-2026 17:31:36
Signature Not Verified
MACA No.69 of 2008
Page 11 of 11