Gauhati High Court
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd vs Purnima Nath And 4 Ors on 29 November, 2021
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010028592020
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/354/2020
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT ORIENTAL HOUSE, A-25/27, ASAF ALI
ROAD, NEW DELHI-110002, AND REGIONAL OFFICE AT GUWAHATI-7,
REPRESENTED BY THE REGIONAL MANAGER.
VERSUS
PURNIMA NATH AND 4 ORS
WIFE OF LATE NRIPENDRA CH. NATH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE
KHALILPUR, WARD NO.15, P.S. AND DISTRICT DHUBRI, ASSAM
2:SATISH CH. NATH
SON OF LATE KINARAM NATH
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KHALILPUR
WARD NO.15
P.S. AND DISTRICT DHUBRI
ASSAM
3:JASHODA DEVI
WIFE OF SATISH CH. NATH
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KHALILPUR
WARD NO.15
P.S. AND DISTRICT DHUBRI
ASSAM
4:MD. NURUL ISLAM
SON OF SAMSUL HOQUE
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DALANERALGA
PART II
P.S. GOURIPUR
DISTRICT DHUBRI
ASSAM. OWNER OF BOLERO PICKUP VAN NO. AS-17-B-3983
Page No.# 2/4
5:AMINUR ISLAM
SON OF NUR MOHAMMAD
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RANGAMATI
PART-I
P.S. GOURIPUR
DIST. DHUBRI
ASSAM. DRIVER OF BOLERO PICKUP VAN NO. AS-17-B-398
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S DUTTA
Advocate for the Respondent : MR. M TALUKDAR
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NANI TAGIA
ORDER
Date : 29.11.2021
Heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mr. M. Talukdar, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1, 2 &
3, submits that respondent No. 2, in the meanwhile, has expired.
In view of the above submission, 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 5
days, in preferring the connected appeal which is directed against the judgment
& award, dated 19.09.2019, passed by the learned Member, MACT, Dhubri, in
Page No.# 3/4
MAC Case No. 78/2015.
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 on account of several deliberations made between
the engaged Advocate and the applicant/Insurance Company.
Mr. Talukdar, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 3, has no objection to
the above prayer.
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 5 days in filing the connected appeal, be
condoned. It is hereby accordingly ordered.
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 by showing the name of Mr. M. Talukdar, learned counsel, as
Page No.# 4/4
appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1 & 3 in the Cause List.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
