Gauhati High Court
Sbi General Insurance Company ... vs Sri Sarbeswar Das And Anr on 22 November, 2021
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010095032019
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/2306/2019
SBI GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AND HEAD OFFICE AT NATRAJ BY
RUSTOMJEE, 101, JUNCTION OF MV ROAD AND WESTERN EXPRESS
HIGHWAY, ANDHERI (EAST), MUMBAI- 400069, ITS REGIONAL OFFICE 4TH
FLOOR, B BLOCK, APEEJAY HOUSE, 15, PARK STREET, KOLKATA- 700016,
WEST BENGAL AND ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT 2ND FLOOR, LAKSHMI
DARSHAN, OPPOSITE BORA SERVICE STATION, ULUBARI, G S ROAD,
GUWAHATI- 781007, REP. BY ITS SENIOR EXECUTIVE- LITIGATION AND
THIRD PARTY.
VERSUS
SRI SARBESWAR DAS AND ANR
S/O- LATE DADHIRAM DAS, R/O- VILL.- BHEBLA, P.S. SIMLA, DIST.-
BAKSHA (BTAD), ASSAM, ABDUL KADDUS, SON OF SHIRAJ MIAH, PIN-
781343.
2:SRI RAHGUBIR SINGH
S/O- UJJAGAR SINGH
R/O- VILL.- NAND RAM PARK
UTTAM NAGAR
DELHI
PIN- 110059. (OWNER OF THE VEHICLE NO. HR- 55/Q-3185)
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR T KALITA
Advocate for the Respondent :
Page No.# 2/4
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NANI TAGIA
ORDER
Date : 22.11.2021
Heard Mr. T. Kalita, learned counsel for the applicant /Insurance Company.
Office Note, dated 16.08.2021, indicates that respondent No. 1 has been
duly served by the process server whose report is placed at Flag 'A'. It also
indicates that notice on respondent No. 2 has been returned unserved with
postal remark 'incomplete' and the same is placed at Flag 'B'.
Process server's report in respect of respondent No. 1 placed at Flag 'A'
which is in vernacular script, as per Mr. Ramen Sarma, the Courtmaster; states
that there is a signature of Mr. Sarbeswar Das/respondent No. 1, acknowledging
the receipt of notice and the report of the process server further indicates that
the same has been served on Mr. Sarbeswar Das, in presence of the witness viz.
Mrs. Sunita Das, wife of Sarbeswar Das. In view of the above, notice on
respondent No. 1 is complete.
Mr. Kalita, learned counsel, submits that as the connected appeal has been
filed by the applicant/Insurance Company challenging the quantum of the
compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal; the respondent No. 2 who is the
owner of the offending vehicle, respectively, is not a necessary party to this
proceeding.
Page No.# 3/4
Prayer is allowed.
At the risk of the applicant, Registry shall strike-off the name of
respondent No. 2 from the array of the respondents.
This is an application preferred by the applicant/Insurance Company under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, praying for condonation of delay of 121
days, in preferring the connected appeal against the judgment & order, dated
12.09.2018, passed by the learned Member, MACT No. 3, Kamrup(M), in M.A.C.
Case No. 2743/2015.
The reasons for the delay in not preferring the connected appeal within
the stipulated time have been explained in 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 Branch, Divisional and Regional Offices of the applicant/Insurance
Company.
Upon hearing the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the
explanation provided in the accompanying application, as indicated above; I am
satisfied that the applicant/Insurance Company was prevented by a sufficient
cause in not preferring the connected MAC. Appeal within the stipulated time
and accordingly, the delay of 121 days in filing the connected appeal, be
condoned. It is hereby accordingly ordered.
Page No.# 4/4
The interlocutory application stands allowed and accordingly stands
disposed of.
Registry shall register the connected appeal and list it for admission
hearing after 2 weeks.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
