MC/1299/2015 of NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs BANIKANTA DAS and ANR on 16 June 2026

ORDER

Date : 17.06.2026 Heard Ms. S. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. None appears for the respondents on call. It appears that services in respect of the respondents are complete. It appears from the Office note dated 28.05.2015 that service in respect of respondent No. 2 stands completed; however, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent No. 2, when the matter is called. Further, the Office note dated 21.05.2026 similarly records service upon the respondent No. 1 stands completed; however, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent No. 1 either. The application is accordingly taken for final disposal. By way of the present application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the applicant seeks condonation of a delay of 22 days in preferring the connected appeal against the judgment and award dated 12.08.2014 passed by the learned Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, Barpeta in W.C. Case No. 26/2013. The delay has been explained in paragraphs 2 to 7 of the application. It is stated that upon receipt of the certified copy of the judgment and award by the Barpeta Road Branch Office on

13.08.2014, the matter was processed through the different levels of the applicant-insurance company in accordance with its internal administrative hierarchy. Opinions were obtained from the concerned panel advocates, and the file was successively examined at the Divisional Office as well as the Regional Office before a final decision was taken to challenge the award. Thereafter, the matter was entrusted to the conducting counsel for preparation and filing of the appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and have perused the materials available on record. From the explanation furnished, it appears that the delay has occurred primarily on account of the time consumed in processing the matter through the various administrative levels of the applicant- company and in obtaining the requisite legal opinions before a decision could be taken to institute the appeal. The explanation offered appears to be bona fide and does not disclose any deliberate inaction or negligence on the part of the applicant. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and being satisfied that sufficient cause has been shown for not preferring the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation, this Court is inclined to condone the delay of 22 days. Accordingly, the delay of 22 days in filing the connected appeal stands condoned. The application is, therefore, allowed and disposed of. Registry shall register and number the connected appeal, if otherwise in order. JUDGE Comparing Assistant