Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs On The Death Of Sanjib Konwar His ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 2713 Gua

                                                                      Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010232332017




                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/282/2017

            ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.




            VERSUS

            ON THE DEATH OF SANJIB KONWAR HIS LEGAL HEIRS REPRESENTED BY
            MISS BITHIKA KONWAR and 4 ORS,




Advocate for the Petitioner   : MS.M CHOUDHURY

Advocate for the Respondent : MS.L SHARMAR-5




                                     BEFORE
                         HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NANI TAGIA

                                           ORDER

Date : 08-11-2021

Heard Ms. M. Choudhury, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. H. K. Buragohain, learned counsel for the respondent No.5.

None has appeared for the respondents No.1 to 4.

This is an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, Page No.# 2/3

1963, read with Order XVI, Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for condoning the delay of 456 days in filing the application for substituting the successor of the deceased, on the death of respondent No.1, late Sanjib Konwar.

In the MAC appeal filed by the applicant challenging the judgment and award dated 31.07.2014, passed by the learned Member, MACT, Tinsukia in MAC Case No.71/2012, the reason for delay of 456 days in filing the substitution application has been stated as follows:

The applicant, while filing the connected MAC appeal challenging the judgment and award dated 31.07.2014, passed by the learned Member, MACT, Tinsukia had also filed a Miscellaneous Application being MC No.1292/2015 for condoning the delay of 25 days in preferring the MAC appeal.

While the M.C. No.1292/2015 had come-up for order on 21.1.2016, the learned counsel for the opposite party No.1 had informed that the opposite party No.1/respondent No.1 in MC. No.1292/2015, who is the claimant had expired on 17.07.2015. It was, thereafter, that the substitution petition along with the petition for delay condonation in abetment was prepared and sent to the applicant's Insurance Company on 28.12.2016 for signature.

The applicant's counsel received the signed petition on 12.01.2017, thereby, resulting in a delay of 456 days in filing the substitution petition.

Mr. Boragohain, learned counsel for the respondent No.5 has no objection, if the delay of 456 days in filing the substitution petition is condoned by this Court.

Page No.# 3/3

Upon hearing the learned counsels for the applicant as well as the respondent No.5, and on perusal of the explanation provided in the accompanying application, the delay of 456 days in filing the substitution petition is hereby condoned for the interest of interest.

The I.A. stands allowed and disposed of.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant