N.I.A.CO.LTD vs UGRESAN HARIJAN

Court
Odisha High Court


IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.698 of 2009
CNR No. ODHC010034582009

(An appeal Under Section-173 of M.V. Act, 1988).


The Branch manager
New India Assurance
Company Ltd., Sundargarh
Branch
… Appellant
-versus-

Ugresan Harijan and
another
… Respondents


For Appellant : Mr. N.B. Das, Advocate

For Respondents : Mr. S. Mohanty (R-3)

CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY



DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:29.10.2026 (ORAL)


G. Satapathy, J.

MACA No.698 of 2009 & Misc. Case No. 1786 of 2009
1. This judgment shall dispose of not only the
Misc. Case No. 1786 of 2009 filed by the Appellant for
condonation of delay of 143 days, but also dispose of the
Appeal on merit.
2. The appeal has been filed by the Branch
Manager New India Assurance Company Ltd. (In short “the

MACA No.698 of 2009 Page 1 of 10

insurer”) challenging the impugned judgment dated
st
27.12.2008 passed by the learned 1 Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Sundergarh (In short, “the Tribunal”) in
M.A.C. Case Nos.32 of 2004 & 33 of 2004, wherein the
insurer was directed to pay a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- only to
the claimants-cum-R1 to R5 herein together with simple
interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. date of filing of claim on
23.06.2004 till realization of the compensation with right
to recover the aforesaid amount from OP No.1-cum-R6 in
due process of law.
3. The facts in this case, being largely
undisputed, is only reiterated in precise for disposal of the
present appeal which traces its origin from an accident,
which took place on 24.05.2004 in which one Sricharan
Harijan while going along with one Mitrabhanu Seth on a
Motor Cycle was allegedly hit by the Truck bearing Regd.
No.MP-07-G-3924(hereinafter referred to as “the offending
vehicle”) from backside resulting in death of both of them.
On this accident, one criminal case in Lephripada PS was

MACA No.698 of 2009 Page 2 of 10

registered against the driver of the offending Vehicle
namely Satyajit Jena and the investigation in the said case
culminated in submission of charge sheet against the
driver for rash and negligent driving the offending Vehicle.
On this accident, a claim being preferred by the
dependents of the deceased Sricharan Harijan, a teacher
by profession, the same was registered by the Tribunal for
grant of compensation.
3.1. In response to the notice of the claim of the
claimants, the owner of the offending Vehicle appeared
and filed her written statement denying all the allegations
levelled against the driver and the involvement of her
Vehicle with further plea that since her offending Vehicle
was duly insured with the insurer, the insurer is
contractually liable to indemnify her by satisfying the
award. On the other hand, the insurer had also
independently contested the claim of the claimants by
filing separate written statement denying its liability to
indemnify the owner of the offending Vehicle for violation
MACA No.698 of 2009 Page 3 of 10

of policy conditions, in addition to denying all the
allegation leveled against the insurer.
3.2. On the inter se pleading between the parties,
the learned tribunal struck with necessary issues and
allowed the parties to lead evidence. Accordingly, the
claimants examined three witnesses and exhibited seven
documents under Exts. 1 to 7 in support of their case as
against no evidence whatsoever by the owner and insurer
of the offending Vehicle.
4. After appreciating the evidence upon hearing
the parties, the learned tribunal passed the impugned
judgment directing the insurer to pay the compensation to
the claimants first and recover thereafter from the owner
in due process of law by holding that the insured has
violated the policy conditions. The Appellant-insurer,
however, challenges the impugned judgment not only on
the quantum of compensation, but also on the interest
component awarded thereon in this appeal.

MACA No.698 of 2009 Page 4 of 10

5. Heard, Mr. Nayan Bihari Das, learned counsel
for the appellant and Mr. Srinivas Mohanty, learned
counsel who enters appearance for R3. None appears for
R1,2,4 & 5 despite being duly noticed, however, the notice
issued against R6 has not yet been made sufficient since
neither AD nor undelivered notice returned from R6, but in
view of the proviso appended to Order-V Rule 9(5) of the
CPC, the service of notice against R6 is held to be
sufficient.
6. After having considered the rival submissions
and upon perusal of record, there appears no dispute that
the appeal has been filed with a delay of 143 days, but the
ground which has been put-forth by the Appellant for
condonation of delay are stated in paragraph 4 to 8 in
Appeal Memo which reads as under: -
“(4) That the order/judgment under challenge
was passed on dt.27.12.2008 and the counsel
for the petitioner in court below after obtaining
the certified copy, prepared his legal opinion and
forwarded to the Division Office of the petitioner
at Cuttack legal Office.

MACA No.698 of 2009 Page 5 of 10

(5) That the Legal Department as per the
Opinion of the Counsel, sent entire records to
the petitioner’s Regional Office to Bhubaneswar
which was received in the month of February.

(6) That the legal department of the Regional
Office prepared the note and put up the file
before his higher authority to take a decision on
preferring appeal before this Hon’ble Court. The
higher authority after taking decision sent entire
records to his legal Office, Cuttack with an
instruction to file appeal.

(7) That the legal department of Cuttack after
receiving the case records from Regional Office
sent the same to the present counsel on Dt.
10.08.2009 with an instruction to file appeal.

(8) That after receiving the case record from the
appellant and going through the same, the
present counsel prepared memorandum of
appeal and filed on dt. 17.08.2009. In the
process there is some delay in presenting the
Memorandum of Appeal.”

7. A careful perusal of the aforesaid averments, it
appears that the delay in this case is stated to have been
occurred due to processing of file and obtaining legal
opinion, but these grounds are not convincing to condone
the delay of 143 days, much less when no material has
been produced to condone the delay. In the context of
condonation of delay, this Court considers it appropriate to

MACA No.698 of 2009 Page 6 of 10

reiterate the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Post
Master General and others Vrs. Living Media India
Ltd. and another; (2012) 3 SCC 563, wherein at
paragraph 29 & 30, it has been held 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
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”

8. It cannot be denied that the insurer in this
case is a public sector company and it is duty bound to
process the file in due diligence, but processing file with
lethargic attitude does not convince the Court to condone
the delay. In the circumstance, the delay in approaching
the Court neither appears to be for any convincing reason
MACA No.698 of 2009 Page 7 of 10

nor was insurer prevented by any sufficient cause so as to
adopt a liberal approach to condone the delay. Besides,
this is an appeal of the year 2009 to challenge the award
passed by the tribunal on 27.12.2008 and that too, in a
claim case of the year 2004 and overturning a decision of
the tribunal without any reason after a gap of 22 years
would definitely cause prejudice to the claimants who are
the poor sufferer and victim of the accident in which they
lost their sole bread earner. It is, however, relevant to
reiterate that the interest component as imposed on the
insurer appears to be on higher side which was duly
acknowledged by the learned counsel for the Respondent-
claimant, and taking into account such acknowledgement
and considering the interest on the award to be on higher
side, small reduction on interest would meet the ends of
justice. Further, albeit the owner of the offending vehicle
has not appeared in this Appeal, but the impugned
judgment was passed in the year 2008, however, the
impugned judgment having not challenged by the owner
of the offending vehicle, this Court does not feel it proper

MACA No.698 of 2009 Page 8 of 10

to touch upon the finding of the tribunal with regard to
grant of recovery rights to the insurer who is at liberty to
recover the amount in accordance with law by satisfying
the award of the tribunal first by filing the independent
application later on for recovery of such award, but the
same is subject to establishment of violation of policy
conditions by the owner of the offending vehicle.
9. In view of the aforesaid developments and on
consideration of the materials placed on record, this Court
does not consider it proper to condone the delay and
admit the appeal, but at the same time reduce the interest
component on compensation to 6% per annum w.e.f date
of filing of the claim till its realization. Hence, the Misc.
Case No. 1786 of 2009 filed by the Appellant for
condonation of delay of 143 days is, hereby, dismissed
10. In the result, the delay being not condoned,
the appeal stands dismissed as barred by law of limitation
at the admission stage, but the interest as awarded by the
learned tribunal on compensation is reduced to 6 % per
MACA No.698 of 2009 Page 9 of 10

annum and the insurer is directed to pay the
compensation amount to the claimants together with
simple interest @ 6% per annum w.e.f date of filing of
claim i.e. on 23.06.2004 till its realization to the claimants
within eight weeks hence. The statutory deposit together
with the accrued interest thereon be refunded back upon
receipt of proof of deposit of compensation amount before
the learned Tribunal.


(G. Satapathy)

Judge


Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
th
Dated the 29 day of October, 2026/Priyajit
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: PRIYAJIT SAHOO
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Date: 30-Oct-2026 18:39:10

MACA No.698 of 2009 Page 10 of 10