The Divisional Manager, The United India Insuranc vs Thirumathi SSundari

Court
Madras High Court

CMP No. 20040 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE N. MALA
CMP No. 20040 of 2026
AND
CMA SR NO. 103802 OF 2026
The Divisional Manager,
The United India Insurance Co. Ltd,
No.13A, Nethaji Road, Divisional
Office,Cuddalore 607 001
..Appellant(s)
Vs
1. S.Sundari
W/o. Sakthivel,
Res. at No.107A,
Jothi Street,
Block 29 and 30,
Neyveli, 607807,
Kurichipadi Tk,
Cuddalore.
2. S.Sabariraja
S/o. Sakthivel,
Res. at No.107A,
Jothi Street,
Block 29 and 30,
Neyveli, 607807,
Kurichipadi Tk,
Cuddalore.
3. S.Sudhevan
S/o. Sakthivel,
Res. at No.107A,
Jothi Street,
Block 29 and 30,
Neyveli, 607807,
Kurichipadi Tk,
Cuddalore.
__________
Page 1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 08:15:37 pm )

CMP No. 20040 of 2026
4. Minor S.Sadhanandam
S/o. Sakthivel,
Res. at No.107A,
Jothi Street,
Block 29 and 30,
Neyveli, 607807,
Kurichipadi Tk,
Cuddalore.
Rep. by 1st Respondent his mother S.Sundari.
5. R.Padmavathi
W/o. Ramalingam Late
Res. at No.107A,
Jothi Street,
Block 29 and 30,
Neyveli, 607807,
Kurichipadi Tk,
Cuddalore.
6. P.Selvi
W/o. Palanivelu
Res. at No.107A,
Jothi Street,
Block 29 and 30,
Neyveli, 607807,
Kurichipadi Tk,
Cuddalore.
..Respondent(s)
CMA SR No. 103802 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA011425092026}
The Divisional Manager, The United India
Insurance Co Ltd,
No.13A, Nethaji Road, Divisional
Office,Cuddalore 607 001
..Appellant(s)
Vs
1. Thirumathi SSundari
No.13A, Nethaji Road, Divisional
Office,Cuddalore 607 001
__________
Page 2 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 08:15:37 pm )

CMP No. 20040 of 2026
2. Thiru S Sabariraja
No.107A, Jothi Street, Block 29 30, Neyveli,
607 807, Kurichipadi Taluk, Cuddalore
3. Thiru S Sudhevan
No.107A, Jothi Street, Block 29 30, Neyveli,
607 807, Kurichipadi Taluk, Cuddalore
4. Minor S Sadhanandam
No.107A, Jothi Street, Block 29 30, Neyveli,
607 807, Kurichipadi Taluk, Cuddalore
5. Thirumathi R Padmavathi
No.107A, Jothi Street, Block 29 30, Neyveli,
607 807, Kurichipadi Taluk, Cuddalore
6. Thirumathi P Selvi
No.1/55, Akilandagengapuram, Gengaikondan
Ammeri, Neyveli 607 802, Cuddalore District
..Respondent(s)
CMP No. 20040 of 2026
Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act,
to Condone the delay of 864 days in filing the above Appeal against the orders
in EC N. 186 of 2022 on the file of the Court of Commissioner for Workmens
Compensation-2, (Joint Commissioner of Labour-2) (Additional Charge)
Tribunal at Chennai-6.
CMA.NO.SR.103802 OF 2026
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 30 of the Employees’
Compensation Act, 1923, against the order dated 12.12.2023 made in
EC.No.186 of 2022, on the file of the Court of Commissioner for Workmen’s
Compensation -2, [Joint Commissioner of Labour-2] [Additional Charge]
Tribunal, at Chennai-6.
__________
Page 3 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 08:15:37 pm )

CMP No. 20040 of 2026
CMP No. 20040 of 2026
For Petitioner(s): M.Krishnamoorthy
For Respondent(s):
Order
(1) The petition is filed by the Insurance Company to condone the delay of
864 days in preferring the above appeal against the order in
EC.No.186/2022 on the file of the Court of Commissioner for Workmen
Compensation-2, (Joint Commissioner of Labour-2) (Additional Charge)
Tribunal at Chennai-6.
(2) The Insurance Company has filed the above appeal with the delay of 864
days. The respondents in the above appeal, filed EC.No.186/2022 on the
file of the Court of Commissioner for Workmen Compensation-2, (Joint
Commissioner of Labour-2) (Additional Charge) Tribunal at Chennai-6.
claiming compensation for the death of one Sakthivel, who was employed
th
under the 6 respondent. The claim was contested by the
petitioner/Insurance Company. However, the learned Joint
Commissioner of Labour, on 12.12.2023, allowed the claim, by granting
compensation of Rs.11,53,175/- at 12% interest per annum, from the date
of accident. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Joint Commissioner,
the above appeal is preferred by the petitioner with the delay of 864 days.
(3) The petitioner, in paragraph No.4 of the affidavit filed in support of the
petition, has explained the delay as follows:-
__________
Page 4 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 08:15:37 pm )

CMP No. 20040 of 2026
‘’4.I submit that the above order passed by the
learned Joint Commissioner of Labour at Chennai
[Camp Cuddalore], dated 12.12.2023 was dispatched
by the office of JCL and was received by the appellant
on 01.04.2024. Our counsel who had conducted the
above case before the JCL had forwarded the copy of
the order along with his opinion to the TP Claims
Hub. The papers were sent to the RO who had
forwarded the same to the appeal panel lawyer
seeking his opinion regarding further course of action.
He had called for the investigation report and relevant
documents and after receipt of the he had offered his
legal opinion. It is further submitted that JCL-II,
Chennai, had only a camp office at Cuddalore,
whereas the administrative and operational activities
were being carried out from Chennai. Consequently,
the process of initiating a Demand Draft, obtaining
the necessary approvals, and forwarding the same
through Registered Post with Acknowledgment Due
[RPAD] consumed considerable time and contributed
to the delay. The papers were misplaced with other
files and after tracing out the papers, the papers were
sent to the appeal panel lawyer to file the appeal and
the appeal is being filed on 23.06.2026 resulting in the
delay of 864 days in filing the appeal.’’
(4) From the above averments, this Court finds that in fact there is a total
absence of explanation for the delay, what is stated appears more to be in
the nature of an excuse. The delay of 864 days which is more than two
__________
Page 5 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 08:15:37 pm )

CMP No. 20040 of 2026
years, ought to have been properly explained. A reading of the above
paragraph shows that the reasons for the delay are totally bereft of
particulars. Vague statements are made that the learned counsel who
conducted the case, gave his opinion with order copy, that they were sent
by the RO for opinion of the appeal panel counsel and that the papers got
misplaced. In which office the papers were misplaced, are not explained.
In my view, the affidavit does not disclose any sufficient cause for the
inordinate delay of 864 days. The length of delay is, definitely, a relevant
factor. The delay not having been properly explained, this Court is of the
view that for the indolence and the lethargy of the petitioner’s officials,
the respondents cannot be penalised.
(5) The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Basawaraj and Others Vs.
Special Land Acquisistion Officer [2013 [14] SCC 81], reiterated that
the discretion to condone the delay has to be exercised judiciously based
upon the facts and circumstances of each case and that if negligence,
inaction or lack of bona fides is writ large, delay cannot be condoned on
equitable grounds. The Court further held that the law of limitation may
harshly effect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its vigour
when the statute so prescribes. The Court relied on the maxim dura lex
sed lex [i.e.,] ''the law is hard but it is the law''.
__________
Page 6 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 08:15:37 pm )

CMP No. 20040 of 2026
(6) The Apex Court, in paragraph No.15 of the judgment, succintly
summarised the issue of limitation as follows:-
''15.  The law on the issue can be summarised to the
effect that where a case has been presented in the court
beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as
to what was the “sufficient cause” which means an
adequate and enough reason which prevented him to
approach the court within limitation. In case a party is
found to be negligent, or for want of bona fide on his part
in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have
not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a
justified ground to condone the delay. No court could be
justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing
any condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided
only within the parameters laid down by this Court in
regard to the condonation of delay. In case there was no
sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court
on time condoning the delay without any justification,
putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an
order in violation of the statutory provisions and it
tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the legislature.''
__________
Page 7 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 08:15:37 pm )

CMP No. 20040 of 2026
(7) It is pertinent to mention that the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court was followed in SLP [Civil] No.31248/2018 [Pathapati
Subba Reddy [Died] By LRs and Others Vs. The Special Deputy
Collector [LA], decided on 08.04.2024 .
(8) Applying the above principles to the facts of the present case, this Court
finds that the petitioner has not furnished coherent, consistent or credible
explanation for the inordinate delay of 864 days.
(9) In view of the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court, and since the delay
has not been properly explained, this Court is not inclined to entertain the
petition and hence, the same is dismissed. Consequently, the Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal is also dismissed at the SR stage itself. No costs.
10-11-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
AP
__________
Page 8 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 08:15:37 pm )

CMP No. 20040 of 2026
N.MALA J.
AP
CMP No. 20040 of 2026
AND
CMA SR NO. 103802 OF 2026
10-11-2026
__________
Page 9 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 08:15:37 pm )