Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 5th February, 2018
M/S ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Saurabh Verma, Advocate.
(M:8860625759)
Through: Mr. Santosh Kumar Pandey, Advocate. (M:9871206374)
JUDGMENT
1. This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 232 days in filing the present appeal. The impugned judgment is dated 13th January
2016. Admittedly, certified copy was received in less than four weeks after the judgement. However, the appeal was filed in November 2016. The reason given for delay is contained in paragraphs 3 & 4 is set out below: “That the delay which has happened in the filing of the appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the reason that the appellant is having the head office at Delhi and from the concerned department the counsel could not get the instructions on time. That the previous counsel who was handling the case before the Ld. Trial court had applied for the certified copy of the impugned judgment and could receive the copy of judgment only on 09.02.2016 and when the 2018:DHC:865 copy of judgment was received it was sent to the concerned department of insurance company to get their opinion and thereafter it was sent from the legal department to the concerned panel lawyers for their further and necessary opinions and when the undersigned counsel received the file from the insurance company he immediately drafted the appeal and sent it back to the insurance company for their approval and made necessary changes if required. After receiving the file from the office of insurance company the counsel filed the appeal before this Hon'ble Court and in all this process it caused the delay of 232 days in preferring this appeal before this Hon'ble court, hence this application seeking condonation of delay of 232 days in approaching this Hon'ble court.”
2. As per the judgment of Supreme Court in Postmaster General & Ors. v. Living Media India Limited & Anr. (2012) 3 SCC 563 delay in respect of departmental delays in government offices is not liable to be condoned. The Supreme Court held as under:
3. In view of the binding judgment of the Supreme Court, application for condonation of delay is dismissed.
4. The appeal also stands dismissed. Decretal amount lying in this Court is released in favour of Respondent. Miscellaneous application also stands disposed of.
5. List before the Registrar on 15th February 2018 for release of amount in favour of Respondent.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH Judge FEBRUARY 05, 2018