SAJALI MURMU Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The application is filed with a prayer for condonation of delay in filing COT No. 92 of 2022.

(2.) In the application it is stated that learned advocate Mr. Krishanu Banik entered appearance in the appeal being no. FMAT 591 of 2009 on behalf of the petitioners/claimants. On 6/1/2010 Hon'ble Division Bench took cognizance of the stay application and called for the records from Tribunal and also directed the Insurance Company to file requisite number of paper book. Further case of the petitioners is that after few years they contacted learned advocate of the Hon'ble High Court though their advocate appeared in the Tribunal, Malda and they did not receive any information regarding final hearing of the appeal. On 3rd week of February, 2020 petitioner no. 2/ one of the claimants went to the Hon'ble High Court and met learned advocate Sri. Krishanu Banik who also informed that no notice of hearing of the appeals was served by the learned advocate on record on behalf of the Insurance Company. Thereafter, COVID 19 pandemic started from March, 2020 and continued up to middle of the year 2022. Learned advocate has tried to settle the matter before National Lok Adalat held in High Court premises from 2014 to 2022 but no result was yielded. Learned advocate of the Hon'ble Court appearing on behalf of the petitioners/claimants came to know about hearing of the appeal in the 1st week of December, 2022. In spite of no notice of hearing of appeal as contemplated under Order 41 Rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Code was served upon the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents/claimants. However, it is pleaded by petitioners that though there was inordinate delay in filing cross appeal but such delay was not intentional and it was beyond their control.

(3.) Learned advocate, Mr. Sanjoy Paul, appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company entered appearance and filed affidavit in opposition stating, inter alia, that on 6/1/2010 claimants/ petitioners were represented by the learned advocate Mr. Banik who appeared in the appeal on behalf of the claimants also withdrew sum of Rs.7,50,000.00. It is further pleaded that after receipt of the interim compensation no steps was taken on behalf of the claimants to expedite the hearing of the appeal and learned advocate on behalf of the claimants never approach settlement of the claim through National Lok Adalat. It is pleaded that when the matter was appearing in the daily cause list before this court suddenly claimants filed cross objection together with the instant application for condonation of delay. There is no specific explanation of condonation of delay of 12 years.