1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12549 OF 2008 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. NO.22984 OF 2008 1 The United India Insurance Company Ltd., through its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Osmanpura, Aurangabad. ..Applicant/ appellant (Orig. Resp. No. 2) VERSUS 1 Babu s/o Nabi Sahab, age 32 years, occ. labour, r/o Nanded, Tq. Dist. Nanded, 2 Shaikh Mansur s/o Shaikh Ismail, age 45 years, occ. Business, (Owner of Truck No. MH-27/X-560), r/o Mukramabad, Taluka Mukhed, District Nanded ..Respondents No.1 Orig. Claimant and No.2 Orig.Resp.no.1) ..... Shri S.V.Kulkarni, advocate for the applicant Shri H.I.Pathan, advocate for respondent no.1 Shri M.V.Ghatge, advocate for respondent no.2 ..... 2 CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J. DATED : 8th September, 2009 PER COURT : 1 Perused. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2 The applicant/appellant has preferred the present application for condonation of delay of 100 days in filing the accompanying First Appeal under Stamp No. 22984 of 2008 challenging the judgment and order passed by Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nanded, below Exh. 5 i.e. Application under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 under no fault liability on 24.4.2008, in M.A.C.Petition No. 859 of 2007. 3 The applicant submits that after passing the said judgment and order on 24.4.2008, the applicant applied for certified copies thereof on 29.4.2008, which was received on 15.5.2008. 4 It is the contention of the applicant/appellant that the concerned advocate gave opinion and thereafter the Divisional Office of the applicant company scrutinized the said file and found that there was law point and compensation awarded by the lower 3 court was incorrect and there was point of breach of terms and conditions of the policy, as the risk of the claimant was not covered. Hence, it is the contention of the applicant that the Divisional Office at Nanded forwarded the said file to the Regional Office at Nagpur for its opinion and approval for filing the appeal against the order and it was found that the case was fit for filing appeal. Thereafter the Regional Office at Nagpur sent the entire file to the Divisional office in the month of November and the Divisional Office, Nanded sent the same to Aurangabad Region office on 5.11.2008. Thereafter it was handed over to the local advocate for preparation of the appeal and accordingly the accompanying First Appeal came to be filed on 17.11.2008. 5 Accordingly the applicant submits that there was no intention to avoid filing of the appeal earlier and due to the afore said reasons, which were beyond the control of the applicant, delay was caused in filing the accompanying First Appeal. It is also the contention of the applicant that due to the procedural aspects and on administrative grounds the delay was caused in filing the accompanying First Appeal. Hence the applicant submits that it is a fit case to condone the delay of 100 days and same be condoned in the interest of justice. 4 6 The learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the present application and submitted that the applicant has not given the proper account i.e. on which date the file was forwarded by the Divisional Office, Nanded, on which date it was received from the Regional Office, Nagpur and on which date it was sent to Aurangabad Regional office and on which date it was handed over to local advocate for preparation of the appeal and in absence of said account, the contentions put forth by the applicant cannot be accepted. 7 Learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that the procedural aspect, administrative ground and official hassle cannot be the ground for condonation of delay and relied upon the observations made by Division Bench of this court headed by Honourable Chief Justice in the case reported at 2008(6) Mh.L.J.239 [State of Maharashtra and others vs Vithu Kalya Govari and others]. 8 Learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that the applicant has miserably failed to explain the delay properly and, therefore, submitted that there is no substance in the present application and same is devoid of any merits and it 5 be rejected. 9 Considering the rival submissions, at the out set, sight cannot be lost of the aspect that the order under challenge in the accompanying First Appeal is the interim order passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nanded in the application under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 under no fault liability. Keeping in mind the said aspect and considering the account given by the applicant in the present application, it is pertinent to note that the application is silent as regards to the dates i.e. on which date the Divisional Office, Nanded forwarded the file to the Regional Office at Nagpur, as well as on which date the Regional Office at Nagpur returned the said file to the Divisional Office, Nanded and further on which date the Divisional Office, Nanded sent back the said file to Auranabad Region office and further on which date Aurangabad office handed over the said file for preparation of the appeal to the local advocate and silence of the applicant in respect of the said very important dates speaks for itself. 10 Moreover, Division Bench of this Court headed by Honourable Chief Justice has observed in the case reported at 2008(6) Mh.L.J.239 [State of Maharashtra and others vs Vithu 6 Kalya Govari and others] (supra) that official hassle is no ground for the condonation of delay and reliance can very well be placed on the observations made in the same case as follows :- “ The public authority or a department is not expected to be negligent or to take no action for years and let the matters become barred by time surely because of its negligence and inaction. The applicants in their application have stated that delay occurred because of “official hassle” and approval at different levels. This can hardly justify condonation of delay. In law advantage has accrued to the non- applicants claimants and the same ought not to be withdrawn in a mechanical manner and that too without any sufficient cause being shown by the applicants. Despite, awards/ judgments of the Courts, which have attained finality, the claimants are not permitted to receive compensation that itself would be a sufficient prejudice to their rights. Before the delay can be condoned and claimants can be subjected to a prolonged litigation, the onus to show sufficient cause lies upon the applicant State. For the reason that the applicants have failed to show sufficient or reasonable cause (in fact they have shown no cause) for the condonation of delay, it is declined.” 11 Moreover, recently the Apex Court, in the case reported at 2008(6) ALT 38(SC) (Pundlik Jalam Patil (D) by L.Rs. Vs. Exe. Eng. Jalgaon Medium Project and Anr.) (supra), by judgment dated 7 3.11.2008, held that it is the duty of the applicants though they are Government authorities, to explain the delay with cogent reasons and reliance can be very much placed on the observations made in paragraph No.24 thereof which reads as under : “24. It is true when the State and its instrumentalities are the applicants seeking condonation of delay they may be entitled to certain amount of latitude but the law of limitation is same for citizen and for Governmental authorities. Limitation Act does not provide for a different period to the Government in filing appeals or applications as such. It would be a different matter where the Government makes out a case where public interest was shown to have suffered owing to acts of fraud or collusion on the part of its officers or agents and where the officers were clearly at cross purposes with it. In a given case if any such facts are pleaded or provided they cannot be excluded from consideration and those factors may go into the judicial verdict. In the present case, no such facts are pleaded and proved though a feeble attempt by the learned counsel for the respondent was made to suggest collusion and fraud but without any basis. We cannot entertain the submission made across the Bar without there being any proper foundation in the pleadings.” 12 In the circumstances, applying the said parameters, in the 8 instant case, it is apparently clear that the procedural aspects, administrative grounds and official hassles cannot be construed as ground for condonation of delay. Besides, it is apparent that there is laxity on the part of the applicant and if the present application is allowed, prejudice would certainly be caused to the respondent. 13 Hence, considering the factual position as well as the legal position, it is apparent that present application bears no substance and same is devoid of any merits and same deserves to be rejected and, therefore, same stands rejected accordingly. The court fee be refunded to the applicant as per rules. ( SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J. ) db//ca12549.08