Sri Prasannajit Borah vs Saifiar Rahman And 2 Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 2560 Gua

                                                                     Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010090922019




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

                                Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/2687/2019

            SRI PRASANNAJIT BORAH
            S/O- LATE NANDESWAR BORAH, R/O- ULUBARI, P.S. PALTANBAZAR,
            KAMRUP(M), GUWAHATI-7, ASSAM.



            VERSUS

            SAIFIAR RAHMAN AND 2 ORS.
            S/O- CHANDULLAH MIA, R/O- VILL.- PUKALAGI PART-III, P.S.
            GOLAKGANJ, DIST.- DHUBRI, ASSAM. (OWNER OF OFFENDING VEHICLE
            NO. AS-17-B-3852).

            2:MD. SAMSUL ALI
             S/O- MONIRUDDIN SIL
             R/O- VILL.- SOUTH RAIPUR
             P.S. GOLAKGANJ
             DIST.- DHUBRI
            ASSAM. (DRIVER OF OFFENDING VEHICLE NO. AS-17-B-3852).

            3:THE BAJAJ ALLIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
             3RD FLOOR
             SHREEJI TOWERS
            ADJACENT TO MAHINDRA SHOWROOM
             CHRISTIANBASTI
             GUWAHATI-5. (INSURER OF THE OFFENDING VEHICLE NO. AS-17-B-3852

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. S K TALUKDAR

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. P HAZARIKA
                                                                        Page No.# 2/3

                                  BEFORE
                      HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NANI TAGIA

                                      ORDER

Date : 27-10-2021

Heard Ms. Shahila T. Bokth, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. P. Hazarika, learned counsel for the opposite party No.3/Insurance Company.

Though, steps for service of notice on the respondents were taken on 14.02.2020, however, unserved notice of respondent No.1 has been received back, and no A/d card in respect of respondent No.2 has been received back till date, as indicated in the Office Note dated 23.08.2021. The learned counsel for the applicant, however, informs this Court that the respondent Nos.1 & 2 did not contest the case before the learned Tribunal.

This is an application filed under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, praying for condonation of delay of 291 days in filing the connected MAC appeal, which is directed against the judgment & order dated 07.04.2018, passed by the learned Member, MACT No.3, Kamrup(M), Guwahati in MAC Case No.1854/2014.

The reason for delay of 291 days in filing the connected MAC appeal has been stated to be on account of the applicant undergoing medical treatment for his complication in upper limp at Delhi, and also on account of having lost the contact number of the legal Advocate representing the applicant.

Mr. Hazarika, learned counsel for the opposite party No.3 while opposing the prayer for condonation of delay occurred in this case submits Page No.# 3/3

that the explanation provided by the applicant may not be accepted inasmuch as the applicant has not given the day-to-day explanations of the delay caused of about 291 days.

Upon hearing the learned counsels for the contesting parties and on consideration of the explanations provided in the accompanying application, though, the explanations provided with regard to the delay of 291 days in filing the connected MAC appeal appears to be compendious, yet, for the interest of justice and also taking into account that the applicant had to travel to Delhi for treatment of his upper limp, I am inclined to condone the delay of 291 days in filing the connected MAC appeal.

Accordingly, delay of 291 days in filing the connected MAC appeal is hereby condoned.

The connected MAC appeal shall now be registered and list for Admission hearing by showing the name of Ms. P. Hazarika as the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.3.

The I.A stands allowed and disposed of, in terms above.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant