Orissa High Court
The Dm National Insurance vs Sasmita Panda & Others on 8 July, 2026
Author: G. Satapathy
Bench: G. Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA NO.47 of 2025
& I.A. No. 39 of 2025
(In the matter of application under Section-173 of M.V.
Act, 1988).
The DM National Insurance ... Appellant
Co. Ltd., Cuttack
-versus-
Sasmita Panda & Others ... Respondents
For Appellant : Mr. P.K. Mahali, Advocate
For Respondents : Mr. P.K. Behera, Advocate
(R-1 & 2)
Mr. K. Das, Advocate (R3)
CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT: 08.07.2026 (ORAL)
G. Satapathy, J.
1. The present Interlocutory Application in
I.A. No. 39 of 2025 U/S.5 of the Limitation Act, 1963
has been filed by the appellant-petitioner to condone
the delay of 320 days in preferring the appeal.
2. Heard, Mr. Prasanta Kumar Mahali,
learned counsel for the appellant-insurer; Mr. Pratap
Kumar Behera, learned counsel for the Respondent
Nos.1 & 2-cum-OP Nos. 1 & 2 and Mr. Karunakar Das,
MACA No.47 of 2025
Page 1 of 7
learned counsel for Respondent No.3-cum-OP No. 3 in
the matter and perused the record.
3. A careful perusal and scrutiny of the
interlocutory application, it appears to the Court that
the petitioner has sought for condonation of delay of
320 days for officially processing the file and the
exigency related to such processing, but nowhere the
Insurance company-cum-petitioner has taken any
specific plea for condonation of delay which is evident
from a plain reading of the averments taken in the IA.
No doubt, delay can be considered liberally, but if the
delay is attributable to the negligence of party, it
should not be considered lightly, more particularly
when the party concerned is a scheduled insurance
company inasmuch as the company is a statutory body
and it cannot be treated like a simple, innocent and
illiterate litigant and when such insurance company is
dealing such matters day in and day out. Additionally,
compensation to the victim of Motor vehicular accident
has to be liberally construed since foundation of such
compensation is based on beneficial & social legislation
MACA No.47 of 2025
Page 2 of 7
which aims to provide not only succor to the victims of
accident, but also prevent them from destitution and
vagrancy. In this case, the impugned judgment was
passed on 09.11.2023 in a claim of the year 2022 and
the insurance company has fought the claim of the of
the Respondent-claimants very diligently before the
learned Tribunal, however, it has not preferred the
appeal in time. In the context of official exigencies to
condone the delay, this Court considers it apt to refer
to the decision in Post Master General and others
Vrs. Living Media India Ltd. and another; (2012) 3
SCC 563, wherein the Apex Court in paragraph 29 has
observed as under: –
“29. In our view, it is the right time to inform
all the Government bodies, their agencies and
instrumentalities that unless they have
reasonable and acceptable explanation for the
delay and there was bona fide effort, there is
no need to accept their usual explanation that
the file was kept pending for several months/
years due to considerable degree of
procedural red tape in the process. The
Government Departments are under a special
obligation to ensure that they perform their
duties with diligence and commitment.
Condonation of delay is an exception and
should not be used as an anticipated benefit
MACA No.47 of 2025
Page 3 of 7
for the Government Department. The law
shelters everyone under the same light and
should not be swirled for the benefit of a
few.”
Similarly, in G. Ramegowda, Major &
Others Vrs. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Bangalore; (1988) 2 SCC 142, the Apex Court in
paragraph-14 has held as under: –
“14. The contours of the area of discretion of
the courts in the matter of condonation of
delays in filing appeals are set out in a
number of pronouncements of this Court.
See: Ramlal, Motilal and Chhotelal v. Rewa
Coalfield Ltd.; Shakuntala Devi Jain v. Kuntal
Kumari; Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd.
v. Nirmala Devi; Lala Mata Din v. A.
Narayanan; Collector, Land Acquisition v.
Katiji etc. There is, it is true, no general
principle saving the party from all
mistakes of its counsel. If there is
negligence, deliberate or gross inaction
or lack of bona fides on the part of the
party or its counsel there is no reason
why the opposite side should be exposed
to a time-barred appeal. Each case will
have to be considered on the particularities of
its own special facts. xx xx xx xx xx.”
4. No doubt, Mr. Mahali by relying upon the
decision in Inder Singh Vrs. The State of Madhya
Pradesh; 2025 INSC 382, submits to take a lenient
view for condonation of delay, but this Court as an
MACA No.47 of 2025
Page 4 of 7
abundant precaution has sought for instruction from
the Insurance company by way of an order dated
06.02.2026 as to whether the appellant-insurance
company is ready to pay Rs. 1,00,000 towards cost for
condonation of delay, however, Mr. Mahali, learned
counsel for the appellant on instruction submits that
the insurance company is not ready to pay any cost
for condonation of delay. Further, the Apex Court
while condoning the delay in Inder Singh(supra)
has imposed cost of Rs.50,000/- on the Respondents
to be paid to the appellant as a condition for
condoning the delay, but in this case, the appellant-
insurance company has emphatically denied to pay
any cost. It is also held by the Apex Court in
paragraph 28 in Post Master General (supra) that
the claim on account of impersonal machinery and
inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several
notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern
technology being used and available. The law of
limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including the
Govt. In view of the aforesaid facts and the law laid
MACA No.47 of 2025
Page 5 of 7
down by the Apex Court together with a careful
scrutiny of the materials placed on record and the
grounds taken by the appellant-insurance company in
support of claim for condonation of delay and keeping
in view the aim and objective of Motor Vehicles Act to
grant compensation to the victims of accident at the
earliest and the respondents-claimants having not yet
been compensated for the death of their predecessor-
in-interest on 05.08.2018 in the accident and the
explanation as offered by the appellant-petitioner-
insurance company for condonation of delay being not
acceptable and the delay as appearing in this case
being the product of negligence of the authorities of
the Insurance Company and being attributed to such
Insurance Company, the delay in preferring this
appeal merits no consideration and cannot be
accepted.
5. In the result, the petition by the
appellant Insurance Company U/S. 5 of the limitation
Act in I.A. No. 39 of 2025 stands dismissed. Since the
delay in preferring the appeal has not been condoned,
MACA No.47 of 2025
Page 6 of 7
the appeal filed by the appellant-insurer, stands
dismissed. The statutory deposit, if any be refunded
back to the appellant-insurance company together
with accused interest thereon.
(G. Satapathy)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 8th day of July, 2026/Priyajit
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: PRIYAJIT SAHOO
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Date: 08-Jul-2026 16:28:22
MACA No.47 of 2025
Page 7 of 7
