KALYAN RAI SURANA,J. - (1.) I have heard Mr. A.J. Saikia, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Mr. H. Das, learned counsel for the Respondent No.1. None appears on call for the respondent No.2.
(2.) By filing this application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the petitioner has prayed for condonation of 99 days delay beyond the period of limitation in filing the accompanying appeal against the judgment and award passed in a motor accident claims case.
(3.) In paragraph 4, 5 and 6 of the application, the applicant has made the below quoted statements:- "4. That, your humble petitioner begs to state that as a Private Sector Undertaking, it is required to act strictly as per the laid down procedures and as such, the files are required to be routed from one office to another and from one table to another and thereafter only the final decision as to whether to prefer an appeal or not is taken after obtaining the opinion of the dealing advocates as well as the advocate practicing in High Court and in this procedural aspect, a considerable time is spent. 5. That, your humble petitioner begs to submit that in order to take a decision whether an appeal is to be filed or not, the files are required to be collected from dealing advocate and then it is processed from the policy issuing Branch to the dealing Regional Office and thereafter to the Head Office, who also requires legal opinion from the Company's advocate before coming to a decision and consequently, it is quiet natural that considerable time is spent in movement of the file from one office to another and from one table to another and taking decision thereon. In this case the dealing office of the petitioner Company received the copy of the judgment and award along with the opinion of the advocate on 03.03.2015 and the said Office after completing all formalities sent the entire file to Kolkata Regional Office and all these took time to reach Regional office in the third week of March 2015. Again the Regional Office after completing necessary formalities had sent the entire case record to its Head Office which had reached head office only in second week of April 2015. The Head office officials had deliberated among themselves took advise from their counsel about the next course of action and the said Advocate opined that it was a fit case wherein an appeal be filed by impugning the judgment and order/award. In the said process about a week's time was required and thereafter the officials in the Mumbai head office had deliberated amongst themselves and took the decision to file the appeal. Thereafter office at Mumbai had sent the record to dealing office at Guwahati which had received the file in mid part of May 2015. After completion of correspondences and formalities the papers of the case were sent to the advocate on 29.05.2015, who had other equally important matters to be prepared and attended to. Hence he could deal with this case only after about seven days and some days were required for preparation of the Memo of Appeal, stay petition and the instant petition for condonation of delay. The reasons for delay, as mentioned above, could not have been avoided in view of the circumstances narrated above. Hence in spite of best efforts made by the Company, the appeal could not be filed within time. 6. That your humble petitioner begs to state that this delay is totally unintentional and has occasioned due to genuine and sufficient cogent reasons and this delay is now required to be condoned so that the appeal filed along with this petition for delay condonation may kindly be taken up for admission hearing after the delay is condoned by this Hon'ble Court." ;