Gauhati High Court
M/S New India Assurane Co. Ltd vs Smti Champa Lahkar And 2 Ors on 27 January, 2021
Page No.# 1/2
GAHC010006942015
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : MC/43/2015
M/S NEW INDIA ASSURANE 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
SMTI CHAMPA LAHKAR and 2 ORS,
W/O LATE BIKASH JYOTI LAHKAR, VILL. HAZARI KACHUK BIHAGURI,
and MOUZA-BIHAGURI, P.S. TEZPUR, DIST. SONTIPUR, ASSAM.
2:BISHNU HAZARIKA
S/O SRI PURNA KT. HAZARIKA
VILL. GHORAMARI
MOUZA HALESWAR
P.S. TEZPUR
DIST. SONITPUR ASSAM OWNER OF VEHICLE NO. AR-03-0342 TRUCK
3:BIKRAM BORO
S/O LATE GOPEN BORO
VILL. CHAPAGURI GHORAMARI
MOUZA HALESWAR
P.S. TEZPUR
DIST. SONITPUR
ASSAM
DRIVER OF VEHICLE NO. AR-03-0342 TRUC
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.A TALUKDAR
Advocate for the Respondent : MS D BORGOHAIN
Page No.# 2/2
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NANI TAGIA
ORDER
Date : 27-01-2021
Heard Mr. K. K. Bhatta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant. Also heard Mr. P. Gohain,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1.
Order, dated 09.12.2019, passed by the Lawzima Court, indicates that notices upon the respondents
No. 2 & 3 have been duly served. In view thereof, service of notice on the respondents No. 2 & 3 is
hereby deemed to be complete.
This is an application preferred by the applicant, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, read
with Section 173(1) proviso of M.V. Act, praying for condonation of delay of 70 days, in preferring the
connected appeal, against the judgment & order, dated 15.05.2014, passed by the learned Member,
MACT (A.D.J. No. 2), Sonitpur, Assam, in MAC Case No. 140/2009.
The reasons for delay in not filing the connected appeal within the stipulated time have been
explained in paragraphs No. 5 & 6 of the accompanying application stating that it was on account of
the file process that was undertaken in the Divisional and Regional Offices of the applicant/Insurance
Company accompanied by the legal opinion that was sought from the learned Advocate that the delay
of 70 days had occurred in preferring the connected appeal.
Upon hearing the learned counsels appearing for the parties and on perusal of the explanation
provided in paragraphs No. 5 & 6 of this misc. 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 70 days in filing the connected appeal, be condoned. It is hereby
accordingly ordered.
The misc. application stands allowed and accordingly stands disposed of.
Registry shall register the connected appeal and list it accordingly.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
