Gauhati High Court
M/S. United India Insurance Co. ... vs Smti. Rajashree Neog And 3 Ors on 22 April, 2021
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010071512019
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/1121/2019
M/S. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 24 WHITES ROAD, CHENNAI- 600014
WITH ONE OF ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT G.S. ROAD, CHRISTIANBASTI,
GUWAHATI- 5, REP. BY ITS CHIEF REGIONAL MANAGER.
VERSUS
SMTI. RAJASHREE NEOG AND 3 ORS.
W/O- LATE DIBYA JYOTI NEOG,
R/O- VILL.- KARANGA CHARINGIA GAON, P.O.- KARANGA- 785008, DIST.-
JORHAT, ASSAM.
2:SRI TEZOZ RAJ NEOG (MINOR)
REP. BY HIS MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN RESPONDENT NO. 1.
R/O- VILL.- KARANGA CHARINGIA GAON
P.O.- KARANGA- 785008
DIST.- JORHAT
ASSAM.
3:SMTI. BULU NEOG
MOTHER OF LATE DIBYA JYOTI NEOG
R/O- VILL.- KARANGA CHARINGIA GAON
P.O.- KARANGA- 785008
DIST.- JORHAT
ASSAM.
4:CHANDRA SING KRO
Page No.# 2/4
S/O- LATE LANGMING KRO
R/O- VILL. AND P.O.- DEITHOR- 782480
P.S. BORPATHAR
DIST.- KARBI ANGLONG
ASSAM. (OWNER-CUM-DRIVER OF VEHICLE NO. AS-5/B-2145)
Advocate for the Petitioner : MD. A AHMED
Advocate for the Respondent : MR. N I CHOWDHURY (R1-R3)
Linked Case :
M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD
VERSUS
SMTI RAJASHREE NEOG AND 3 ORS
------------
Advocate for :
Advocate for : appearing for SMTI RAJASHREE NEOG AND 3 ORS
Page No.# 3/4
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NANI TAGIA
ORDER
Date : 22-04-2021
Heard Mr. A. J. Saikia, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. H. Rahman, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1, 2 & 3.
At the very outset; Mr. Saikia, learned counsel, submits that the name of respondent No. 4
may be struck-off from the array of the respondents as he is not a necessary party in the present
proceeding.
The prayer is allowed.
Registry is directed to strike-off the name of respondent No. 4 from the array of the
respondents at the risk of the appellant.
This is an application preferred by the applicant, under proviso to Section 173 of the M.V. Act,
read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, praying for condonation of delay of 132 days, in
preferring the connected appeal, against the judgment & award, dated 10.07.2018, passed by the
learned Member, MACT No. 2, Kamrup(M), Guwahati, in MAC Case No. 2554/2015.
The reasons for delay in not filing the connected appeal within the stipulated time have been
explained in paragraphs No. 2 to 9 of the accompanying application stating that the delay have
occurred due to the official procedure to be followed after a legal opinion was sought from the learned
Advocate in making correspondence between the Divisional and Regional Offices of the applicant/
Insurance Company.
Page No.# 4/4
Upon hearing the learned counsels appearing for the parties and on perusal of the explanation
provided in paragraphs No. 2 to 9 of the accompanying application; I am satisfied that the applicant
was prevented by a sufficient cause in not preferring the connected MAC. Appeal within the stipulated
time and accordingly, the delay of 132 days in filing the connected appeal, be condoned. It is hereby
accordingly ordered.
The interlocutory application stands allowed and accordingly stands disposed of.
Registry shall register the connected appeal and list it for admission hearing after a week.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
