Court No. - 32 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER DEFECTIVE No.
- 510 of 2014 Appellant :- Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Respondent :- Karampal And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Pranjal Mehrotra
Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Abhai Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the Insurance company and perused the record.
Since the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act has been rejected, hence this appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.2.2018 Rk
Court No. - 32
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER DEFECTIVE No.
- 510 of 2014 Appellant :- Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.
Respondent :- Karampal And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Pranjal Mehrotra
Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Abhai Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the Insurance Company and perused the record.
The appeal is reported to be beyond by 159 days.
The present application under section 5 of the Limitation Act has been moved for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
By means of the F.A.F.O. the impugned order dated 17.8.1913 passed by the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation , Ghaziabad has been challenged in W.C.A. No.39/10 after the order was passed on 17.8.13. According to affidavit the counsel for the appellant sent a copy of the judgement and order with relevant papers to Delhi Office of the Appellate Tribunal of Insurance Company in September 2013. Thereafter some clarification was sought which was sent in December 2013. However, clarification was sent. Thereafter Delhi Office of the Insurance Company sent the matter to Mumbai Head Office for sanction for filing of the appeal in February 2014, then Mumbai Office sent the papers to be examined and asked the Delhi Office to send the various other documents which was sent to Delhi Office and from there same were sent in March 2014 to Mumbai Head Office.for filing the appeal and thereafter the matter was sent to the official concerned to contact the counsel on 22.3.2014. Thereafter the appeal was filed on 24.3.2014. The delay has not been properly explained. There was casual exercise on the part of the officer of the Insurance Company dealing with the matter. Since the delay has not been properly explained, hence the present application under 5 of the Limitation Act is hereby rejected.
Order Date :- 27.2.2018 Rk