In Mac Appeal No.6675/2020 ... vs M/S Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd And ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 2829 Gua

                                                                     Page No.# 1/2

GAHC010123192020




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

                       Case No. : I.A. (Civil) No.1591 of 2020
                        In MAC Appeal No.6675/2020 (Filing Number)

            MANOJ KUMAR SAH
            S/O- SRI RAM DEO SAH, VILL.- ANANDA NAGAR PATH, FCI, P.O.
            BAMUNIMAIDAM, P.S. NOONMATI, DIST.- KAMRUP(M), ASSAM, PIN-
            781021.

                               VERSUS

            1: M/S ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD AND 2 ORS
            GUWAHATI BRANCH, REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, AMARAVATI PATH,
            G.S. ROAD, GUWAHATI- 781005.

            2:MILAN DAS
            S/O- LATE RAMESH DAS, VILL.- KALUBARI P.O. AND P.S. NAGARBERA
            DIST.- KAMRUP(R) ASSAM- 781127.

            3:SMT. BOGI RAJBONGSHI
            W/O- SRI NARESWAR RAJBONGSHI, VILL.- ALTA P.O. DUMUNI CHOWKI
            P.S. BAIHATA CHARIALI DIST.- KAMRUP(R) ASSAM- 781380

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MISS. M DAS
Advocate for the Respondent : MS A HUSSAIN

                           -BEFORE-
             HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. R.M. CHHAYA

                                          ORDER

Date : 08-08-2022

Heard Mr. S. Islam, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant. Also heard Ms. A. Hussain, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent Page No.# 2/2

No.1 and Mr. N.K. Kalita, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent No.3.

By this application under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (as amended) read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the applicant/appellant, who is the owner of the offending truck involved in the accident, has prayed for condonation of delay of 1629 days in preferring the connected appeal.

Mr. S. Islam, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant has drawn the attention of this Court to the averments made in Paragraphs 4 & 5 of this application.

It is evident from the record that the only reason explained is that the learned Advocate Mr. S. Islam did not inform the applicant about passing of the judgment. Except that, no explanation for enormous delay of 1629 days is given by the applicant. Even if a lenient view is taken, the unexplained delay of 1629 days does not warrant any leniency in condoniation of delay. It appears that the applicant, in order to avoid the execution of the award, has preferred this appeal belatedly after 1629 days.

In view of the above, no case for condonation of delay is made out and hence, the application stands dismissed.

As the delay is not condoned, the connected MAC Appeal also stands dismissed.

CHIEF JUSTICE

Comparing Assistant