Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

UNITED INIDA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITEDversusSMT. YASMIN SAMIR SHEIKH AND ORS.

Decided
Disposal
Disposed Off

Holding

The Court refused to condone the delay and dismissed the application.

Summary

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) rendered an award on 24 February 2011 in two applications involving United India Insurance Company Ltd. The insurer sought to challenge the award but filed a petition for condonation of delay more than three years later, on 30 September 2026. The petition highlighted that the insurer obtained a certified copy of the award only after two years and delayed internal approvals before preparing a draft appeal, resulting in a total delay of 3 years and 81 days. The Court examined whether the insurer provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay and found none, noting the lack of urgency and diligence. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition and ordered the statutory deposit with interest to be transferred to the Tribunal for disbursal as per the award.

Issues considered

  • Whether the delay of 3 years and 81 days in preferring an appeal against the MACT award can be condoned.

Subjects

  • condonation of delay
  • appeal against tribunal award
  • Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
  • insurance claim
  • statutory deposit
  • interest

Judgment

                      LSP                                 1             15 caf 3254.14.doc


                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                        Civil Application No.3254 of 2014
                                                          In
                                        First Appeal (st) No. 22325 of 2014
                                                         And
                                        Civil Application No.3255 of 2014

                      United India Insurance Company Ltd.              …       Applicant
                            V/s.
                      Smt. Yasmin Samir Sheikh and others              …       Respondents.


                      Mr. Rahul Mehta i/b. KMC Legal Advocate for the Applicant
                      Venture
                      Mr. Vilas N. Mali              Advocate for the Respondent
                                                     No.4

                                                 CORAM : S.M. MODAK, J

                                                    DATE : 30th September 2026.

                      P.C. :
                      1.       Heard learned Advocate Mehta for the Applicants and learned
                      Advocate for the Claimant-Respondents.

                      2.       The Tribunal as per the Award dated 24 th February 2011 has
                      decided two M.A.C.T. Applications Nos.9/2006 and 10/2006. The
         Digitally


LATA
SUNIL
         signed by
         LATA
         SUNIL
         PANJWANI
                      Insurance Company intends to challenge the award in M.A.C.P. No.
PANJWANI Date:
         2026.10.03
         15:14:18
         +0530

                      10/2006, however, there is delay of 3 years and 81 days in preferring
                      an appeal and that is why present application.
LSP                                 2                15 caf 3254.14.doc


3.    Learned Advocate Mr. Mehta has taken me through various
averments in the application and the annexures. It includes the letter
sent by learned Advocate who is representing the Insurance
Company before the Tribunal and the correspondence made by the
Regional office to the Divisional office.

4.    First stage of delay is filing an application for getting certified
copy. Though the award was delivered on 24 th February 2011, the
copy was applied after lapse of two years on 24th February 2014 by
the trial Court Advocate. Second aspect of delay is after obtaining
certified copy and till the final decision is taken at office level for
preferring an appeal.

5.    When I have gone through the averments in the application
and supporting documents, I do not find there is a convincing
reason given for condonation of delay. At the first stage either the
learned Advocate for the Insurance Company appearing before the
Tribunal ought to have applied for certified copy after the judgment
is delivered. Why it was not applied is not explained. The period is
too long of two years. The next stage is taking a decision whether to
prefer an appeal or not. The period is from 12 th March 2014 till the
draft is prepared for approval by law firm on 25 th July 2014. No
doubt as per part of the office procedure the approvals are required to
be taken but if the necessary correspondence is perused, it seems that
correspondence was not made with urgency. It seems that it was
made in a routine manner. The Insurance Company ought to have
LSP                                 3              15 caf 3254.14.doc


shown diligence in taking the expeditious approvals and ought to
have preferred an appeal with diligence. I find it missing. So there is
no satisfactory reason for condoning the delay. Hence, the
application is dismissed.

6.    The amount of statutory deposit along with interest be
transferred to the Tribunal for disbursal as per the Award.



                                              (S.M. MODAK, J.)


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.