Sikkim HC condones insurer's 223-day delay but orders Rs 50,000 cost

The Sikkim High Court has allowed National Insurance Company Limited to pursue a revision petition it filed 223 days late, but ordered the insurer to pay Rs 50,000 in costs for wrongly blaming the delay on its former lawyer's health, Live Law reported.

The order, by Justice Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, was passed on October 8 and reported this week.

Why the petition was late

The insurer was challenging an order dated August 30, 2025. Because its revision petition was filed well outside the time allowed, it applied under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which lets courts accept late filings when there is "sufficient cause".

The company gave three reasons: the alleged ill-health of the counsel it had engaged earlier, the time its new counsel needed to go through the case records, and the deputation of its officers to Special Intensive Revision (SIR) duties for the electoral rolls in West Bengal.

It later withdrew the claim about its former counsel's illness, telling the court the statement had been made because of a communication gap.

What the court said

The court found the explanation for the delay unsatisfactory, particularly once the allegation against the former counsel was withdrawn. It also noted that the insurer had not produced documents to back its claim that officers were busy with SIR work.

"Blaming a counsel who was previously engaged without a proper verification on the part of the applicant is a serious matter. This was incorrect and not appreciated. It should be avoided," Justice Pradhan said, as quoted by Live Law.

Even so, the court said a justice-oriented approach should guide decisions on condoning delay, and chose to let the revision petition be heard on its merits rather than shut it out on a technicality.

Where the money goes

The delay was condoned on the condition that the insurer pays Rs 50,000 to the Sikkim State Legal Services Authority. The court directed that the amount be used for the rehabilitation of child survivors of sexual assault under the POCSO Act.

The underlying dispute in the revision petition has not yet been decided.