Gauhati High Court
New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Jogendra Nath Barman And 2 Ors on 26 August, 2021
Page No. 1/3
GAHC010014092014
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : MC/2462/2014
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NEW ASSURANCE BUILDING 87,
MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD, MUMBAI AND ONE OF THE REGIONAL
OFFICES AT G.S. ROAD, BHANGAGARH, GUWAHATI-5, ASSAM.
VERSUS
JOGENDRA NATH BARMAN and 2 ORS,
S/O LATE AKOULU RAM BARMAN, VILL. NALPARA, P.S. BASISTHA,
GUWAHATI, DIST. KAMRUP, ASSAM.
2:MD JAVED
S/O SABIR HUSSAIN
R/O VLLL. MATWARI
P.S. SADAR
DIST. HAZARIBAGH
JHARKHAND.
3:DHARAMENDER DUBEY
S/O RAM KHETAWAN
R/O VILL. BELEDORI
P.S. KEREDARI
HAZARIBAGH
JHARKHAND
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.A TALUKDAR
Advocate for the Respondent : MRD MONDAL
Page No. 2/3
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY
ORDER
Date : 26-08-2021
The Court proceedings have been conducted through online court proceeding
services.
Heard Mr. K.K. Bhatta, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. D. Mondal,
learned counsel for the opposite party no. 1.
The service of notice on the opposite party nos. 2 & 3 was held to be complete
by order dated 07.11.2019.
This application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with
proviso to Section 173(1), Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking condonation of delay of
124 days in preferring the connected appeal against the judgment and award dated
19.12.2013 passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 2, Kamrup,
Guwahati ("the Tribunal", for short) in MAC Case no. 683/2009.
The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a plea was taken
before the learned Tribunal that the vehicle involved in the accident did not have any
insurance policy from the applicant-insurer and to that effect, an additional written
statement was also filed before the learned Tribunal. But the learned Tribunal did not
consider the same in the proper perspective and the applicant-insurer had been
saddled with the liability to pay the compensation. After receipt of the copy of the
impugned judgment and award, the applicant-insurer wanted to ensure further as to
whether there was any valid and effective insurance policy in respect of the vehicle
from the applicant-insurer and as to whether the liability towards 3 rd party had to be
borne by them. The period of delay i.e. 124 days in preferring the connected appeal
had occurred in order to find out as about the existence of any such insurance policy
and to take a decision of the highest level as to whether to prefer any appeal or not.
The applicant-insurer has explained in paragraph 5 of the application the other
reasons for which the delay had occurred.
Page No. 3/3
Mr. Mondal has submitted that the applicant-insurer has failed to explain the
delay in the proper manner and there appears to be negligence on the part of the
applicant-insurer in preferring the connected appeal in time.
I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. I have
also considered the averments made in the application, more particularly, the
averments made in paragraph 4 and paragraph 5 thereof. Considering the fact that the
insurer had raised the issue about non-existence of the policy before the learned
Tribunal and having regard to the submissions made to that effect, I am of the view
that the applicant has been able to explain the reasons showing sufficient cause as to
why the delay of 124 days had occurred in preferring the connected appeal.
Accordingly, the said period of 124 days in preferring the connected appeal is
condoned. The application stands allowed accordingly.
Registry to register and list the appeal for admission accordingly.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
