UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. JYOTSNA RANI BAISHYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is so preferred against the award dated 28.5.93 passed by the learned Member, MACT (Nalbari) in MACT Case No. 45/90 by virtue of which the appellant is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 70,000/ to the claimant figuring hear as respondent.

(2.) Since against the judgment dated 28.5.93 as referred to above, this appeal is so preferred on 18.8.94 there is a prayer on behalf of line appellant being represented by Mr. S.S. Sharma, learned counsel that delay of 414 days in preferring this appeal be thus condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act on the grounds that since at the opportunate moment the learned counsel for the appellant could not inform of the Award, the steps could not be taken as to prefer the appeal in time. In support of his this contention he has referred to a recent reported case AIR 1996 SC 2750 (Special Tashilsidar Land Acquisition, Kerala Vs. KV Ayisu) In this background, it is pointed out that the Apex Court had recently held that while hearing on the point of condonation of delay, as to meet the ends of justice it is not expected as to explain the every days delay in preferring appeal. The Apex Court also held as pointed out by Mr. S.S. Sharma that in Govt. undertaking it takes sometimes as to take decision even on this point which causes delay and in this case also the same thing happened hence this appeal was: not preferred in time which be thus condoned.

(3.) Mr. B.M. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent who has also filed affidavit-in-opposition has submitted that this appellant-petitioner had knowledge regarding the gate of passing of the Award dated 28.5.93 and the grounds so taken with regard to the lawyer for the appellant I having as knowledge is informing the appellant in time may not be a good ground for the delay in preferring the appeal in time. In support of his this contention he has referred to a reported case AIR 1970-SC 1953 (Matadin Vs. A. Narayanan. In this connection, learned counsel for the respondent has taken me to paragraph-6 of the said judgment submits that mistake on the pan of the learned counsel not informing the party, in all the cases may not be good grounds for codoning the delay. Mr. Choudhury learned counsel had also taken 2 other ground as good grounds for not condoning the delay. The first ground so taken is after passing the impugned judgment on 28.5.93 the learned Court below sent notice to the appellant and the said notice was duly served upon him which is also establish by the report of the Process Server being supported by an affidavit. The second ground is that the appellant had knowledge about the judgment and award dated 28.5.93 because in paragraph 8 of the grounds it has been specifically indicated that there was some review application was filed against the impugned order dt. 28.5.93. Hence the prayer is that the delay in preferring the appeal be thus not condoned.