Madras HC Refuses To Excuse Insurer’s 864-Day Appeal Delay, Leaving ₹11.53 Lakh Death Compensation Award Intact

The respondents had obtained an award of ₹11,53,175, with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the accident, for the death of Sakthivel in proceedings under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923.

The Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation made the award on 12 December 2023.

The Insurance Company sought to appeal under Section 30 of the Act, but filed its appeal 864 days late and applied under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to condone the delay.

It attributed the delay to internal processing, the time taken to obtain approvals and send a demand draft, and the misplacement of papers.

Section 5 of the Limitation Act permits a court to condone delay only where the applicant establishes sufficient cause.

In Basawaraj v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2013) 14 SCC 81, the Supreme Court held that negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides does not justify condonation, and that limitation must be applied as prescribed by law.

The judgment also noted that this approach was followed in Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by LRs v. Special Deputy Collector (LA), SLP (Civil) No. 31248 of 2018, decided on 8 April 2024.

The Court found that the Insurance Company’s explanation consisted of vague assertions about the movement and processing of papers, without particulars identifying where or when the papers were misplaced or explaining the periods of inactivity.

Given the substantial 864-day delay, the affidavit did not establish a coherent, consistent or credible sufficient cause.

The Court therefore concluded that the delay reflected the petitioner’s officials’ indolence and lethargy, and that the respondents should not be penalised for it.

Consequently, the civil miscellaneous appeal was also dismissed at the SR stage; no costs were ordered.