BRANCH MANAGER, ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD ; GENERAL MANAGER Vs. PEMA NAMGYAL BHUTIA; WANGCHUK DOMA BHUTIA; SONAM PEDEN BHUTIA; DIKI DOMA BHUTIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellants-Opposite parties have preferred an Appeal against the impugned Judgment and Award dated 29-06-2015 passed by the Learned Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, North Sikkim at Mangan, (for short "the Claims Tribunal"), in MACT Case No.21 of 2014, wherein the Appellants were directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,46,650/- (Rupees three lakhs forty six thousand six hundred and fifty) only, with interest @ 10% per annum, on the said sum, to the Respondents-Claimants, from the date of filing of the Claim Petition, i.e., 12-09-2014, till full and final payment. The Appeal is delayed by a period of 183 days, hence the prayer for condonation of delay.

(2.) It is submitted by Learned Counsel for the Appellants, that after the impugned Judgment and Award was passed on 29-06- 2014, the Appellants applied for certified copy on 07-08-2015 which was made available, on the same day. The limitation period for presenting the Memo of Appeal was on or before 27-09-2015, i.e., 90 days, from the date of the impugned Judgment and Award. However, the delay occurred as Learned Counsel for the Appellants sent the certified copy to the Office of the Appellants at Siliguri, West Bengal, where all decisions concerning legal matters are taken. After examining it for a few days, the impugned Judgment and Award was forwarded to its Office at Kolkata, West Bengal, on receipt of which, the Office at Kolkata decided to prefer an Appeal before this Court, thereafter the file was returned to its Siliguri Office with necessary directions. That, there are two analogous cases arising out of the same accident registered as MAC App. Nos. 19 and 20 of 2015, pending disposal before this Court and this Appeal was kept in abeyance, in anticipation of the Judgment of this Court. The Memo of Appeal was finally ready on 24-03-2016 and filed on 29- 03-2016 and hence, the prayer for condonation of delay.

(3.) On the other hand, it was argued by Learned Counsel for the Respondent that in the first instance the Appellants took time in applying for certified copy of the impugned Judgment and Award as evident from the submissions put forth. Thereafter, the Appellants have failed to give "sufficient cause" as no explanation on account of the delay, on a day to day basis, has been forthcoming. That there was no reason for this Appeal to have been kept in abeyance merely on the ground that MAC App. Nos.19 and 20 of 2015, arising out of the same accident were filed before this Court earlier. Hence, the Application be dismissed as the Appellants have failed to provide "sufficient cause" for the delay.