Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010318452019
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/360/2020
SMTI. PURABI DAS AND 2 ORS
WIFE OF LATE GOPAL DAS, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AMOLAPATTY GUARD
QUARTER, DIBRUGARH, P.O, P.S. AND DISTRICT DIBRUGARH, ASSAM.
2: MISS ANANYA DAS
DAUGHTER OF LATE GOPAL DAS
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AMOLAPATTY GUARD QUARTER
DIBRUGARH
P.O
P.S. AND DISTRICT DIBRUGARH
ASSAM.
3: SRI BAIBHAB DAS
DAUGHTER OF LATE GOPAL DAS
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AMOLAPATTY GUARD QUARTER
DIBRUGARH
P.O
P.S. AND DISTRICT DIBRUGARH
ASSAM. REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER SMTI PURABI DAS
VERSUS
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND ANR
DIGBOI BRANCH, P.O. AND P.S. DIGBOI, DISTRICT TINSUKIA, ASSAM
2:M/S ADITI R AND D SERVICES
DIGBOI RILEX COMPLEX DIGBOI CHARIALI
P.O. AND P.S. DIGBOI
DIST. TINSUIKIA
ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A R SHOME
Advocate for the Respondent :
Page No.# 2/3
Linked Case :
SMTI. PURABI DAS AND 2 ORS
VERSUS
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND ANR
------------
Advocate for : MR. A R SHOME
Advocate for : appearing for THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
AND ANR
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA
ORDER
02.08.2022 Heard Mr. A.J. Ghosh, learned counsel for the applicant. This I.A. has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 232 days in preferring the accompanying appeal which is preferred by the applicant/claimant against the Judgment and Order dated 02.02.2019 passed in MACT Case No. 88/2013 by the Addl. District Judge, Dibrugarh. By order dated 04.12.2020, Notices were issued pursuant to which the applicant had taken steps on the respondents. Office note dated 24.06.2022, indicates that service on respondent No. 1 is complete and service on respondent No. 2 is not complete with remark "Addressee left".
Page No.# 3/3 Today when the matter is listed, considering the fact that service on respondent No. 1 has been completed, this Court requested the appearance of Ms. R.D. Mazumder, learned counsel who ordinarily appears for the New India Assurance Company to enter appearance in respect of the respondent No. 1, and who was available in Court.
It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant that the opposite party No. 2 did not appear before the Court of the Additional District Judge, Dibrugarh at the time of hearing of the MAC case. The learned counsel for applicant has taken this Court to the order dated 02.02.2019 against which the present appeal has been preferred and at Para-2, the learned Addl. District Judge, Dibrugarh has recorded that the case has proceeded ex-parte against the opposite party No.2 therein and the said party is also arrayed as the opposite party No. 2 in the present IA and in the accompanying appeal. The opposite party No. 2 is the owner of the vehicle. This Court has considered the grounds urged for condonation of delay. The learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company in all fairness submits that she has no objection if the delay is condoned. Sufficient cause has been shown in the grounds urged Accordingly, after hearing the learned counsels for the parties, the delay of 232 days which had occurred in filing the accompanying MAC appeal is condoned.
The I.A. is accordingly disposed of.
Registry is directed to number the MAC appeal and list within a period of two weeks.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant