Gauhati High Court
Sri Gakul Chandra Das vs Abdul Barek And 6 Ors on 26 November, 2021
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010098652019
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/2391/2019
SRI GAKUL CHANDRA DAS
S/O- SRI RAMANIKANT DAS, R/O- H/NO. 9/A, JAPORIGOG,
LAKHIMINAGAR, NEAR LAKHI MONTESWARI SCHOOL, P.S. DISPUR,
DIST.- KAMRUP(M), ASSAM, PIN- 781005.
VERSUS
ABDUL BAREK AND 6 ORS.
S/O- LATE ARAN ALI.
2:ANOWARA KHATUN
W/O- ABDUL BAREK
3:MD. JAHIDUL ISLAM
S/O- ABDUL BAREK
4:MD. MOYNAL HOQUE
(OPPOSITE PARTIES NO. 4 BEING MINOR IS REP. BY HIS FATHER I.E.
OPPOSITE PARTIES NO. 1).
5:NILIMA KHATUN
D/O- DECEASED LATE ATOWAR RAHMAN
ALL ARE RESIDENT OF VILL.- MOWAMARAI
P.O. RAMAPARA PAM
P.S. ALOPATI CHAR (BAGHBOR)
Page No.# 2/4
DIST.- BARPETA
ASSAM
PIN- 781308.
6:MOFIDA KHATUN
W/O- ALEK CHAN AHMED
R/O- VILL.- PAHARPUR
KATOLI
P.O. HABIDONGRA
P.S. BAGHBOR
DIST.- BARPETA
ASSAM
PIN- 781308.
7:HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
REP. BY THE GENERAL MANAGER
UPPER GROUND FLOOR
MAYUR GARDEN
ABC BUS STOP
G.S. ROAD
BHANGAGARH
GUWAHATI
DIST.- KAMRUP(M)
ASSAM
PIN- 781005
Advocate for the Petitioner : G UDDIN
Advocate for the Respondent : MR. K K BHATTA
Linked Case :
SRI GAKUL CHANDRA DAS
Page No.# 3/4
VERSUS
ABDUL BAREK AND 6 ORS
------------
Advocate for :
Advocate for : appearing for ABDUL BAREK AND 6 ORS
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA
ORDER
Date : 26.11.2021
Heard Mr. G. Uddin, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Heard Mr.
A. Roshid, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1.
This is an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963 for
condonation of delay of 360 days in filing of the appeal.
The intended appeal is from a judgment of the MAC Tribunal at Guwahati.
The applicant claims that it intended to pray before this Court for setting aside the
judgment of the tribunal to the extent of liability imposed upon it. It is further
submitted that the respondent also filed an appeal against the same judgment and
when this Court issued a notice to the applicant, then only it came to know about
that appeal filed by the respondents. The applicant started the exercise of obtaining
opinions from its authorities and in this way, the delay occurred.
The opposite party/respondent has filed an affidavit in opposition thereby
assailing the reasons shown by the applicant.
I have given my anxious considerations to the submission made by the
Page No.# 4/4
learned counsel for both the sides
It is a settle position of law that while considering petitions under Section 5 of
the Limitation Act, the Courts are not required to take a technical approach. The
provisions for payment of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act are beneficial
legislations, but one must remember that the insurance company concerned pays
compensation from public money. Therefore, if the tribunal erroneously passes any
order, injustice will be caused to the insurance company.
For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the opinion that the grounds shown
by the applicant constitute "sufficient cause". Therefore, the delay of 360 days is
condoned.
The interlocutory application stands disposed of.
The connected appeal be registered and listed for admission hearing.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
