Gauhati High Court
Abdul Hai Ahmed vs Iliyasur Rahman And 2 Ors on 26 August, 2022
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010158202020
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/1992/2020
ABDUL HAI AHMED
S/O- ALHAJ ABDUL ROB AHMED, VILL.- DUMARDAHA BASERPULL, P.S.
GAURIPUR- 783331, DIST.- DHUBRI, ASSAM.
VERSUS
ILIYASUR RAHMAN AND 2 ORS.
S/O- NURUL ISLAM, R/O- VILL.- MAJERGAON, P.O. AND P.S. CHAPAR,
DIST.- DHUBRI, ASSAM.
2:SAFIQUL ISLAM
S/O- NURUL ISLAM
R/O- VILL.- MAJERGAON
P.O. AND P.S. CHAPAR- 783371
DIST.- DHUBRI
ASSAM.
3:THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
DHUBRI BRANCH OFFICE
REP. BY ITS REGIONAL OFFICE
GUWAHATI
G.S. ROAD
ULUBARI
P.O. GUWAHATI- 781007
DIST.- KAMRUP(M)
ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A R AGARWALA
Advocate for the Respondent : MS C BORAH
Page No.# 2/5
Linked Case : MAC. App./8536/2020 (Filing Number)
ABDUL HAI AHMED
VERSUS
ILIYASUR RAHMAN AND 2 ORS. (D)
------------
Advocate for : MR. A R AGARWALA
Advocate for : appearing for ILIYASUR RAHMAN AND 2 ORS. (D)
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA
ORDER
Date : 26.08.2022
Office Note dated 30.07.2022 reflects that respondents
No.1, 2 and 3arerepresented by counsels however, none
appears on behalf of respondent No.1 and 2 when the matter
is called up.
Mr. A.R. Agarwala, learned counsel appears for the
applicant and Ms. M. Choudhury, learned counsel appears for
the Opposite Party/respondent No.3.
This Interlocutory Application has been filed by the
applicant, who was the claimant praying for condonation of
delay of 64 days that had occurred in filing the accompanying
appeal. The claimant has preferred the appeal being aggrieved
by the Judgment and Order dated 11.10.2019, passed by the
learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhubri,
Assam in MAC Case No. 267/2016. By the said Judgment and
Page No.# 3/5
Order the respondent No.3/Insurance company was directed
to pay an amount of Rs.1,60,956/- (Rupees one lakhs sixty
thousand nine hundred fifty six) only with interest @8% per
annum from the date of institution of the case till realization.
The applicants being aggrieved with the award made by
the Tribunal has preferred the statutory appeal on the grounds
that appropriate and adequate compensation has not been
awarded by the Tribunal. Although the respondents have been
duly served, no objections opposing the prayer for
condonation of the delay has been filed. Ms. M. Choudhury,
learned counsel for the respondent No.3 also does not oppose
the prayer for condonation of the delay.
The learned counsels for the parties have been heard
and the pleadings on record have been perused. The grounds
urged in the application for condonation of delay are as
under:-
"3. That the petitioner state that the Judgment and Award was
passed on 11-10-2019, but he could apply for the certified copy of
the same on 19-11-2019. The said certified copy was made ready
for delivery on 20-11-2019 and was delivered on 20-11-2019. The
petitioner came to know about passing of the judgment on
18.11.19 and went to meet the lower Court counsel on 19.11.19
and applied for certified copy and the requisite folios where
supplied and the copy became ready on 20.11.2019 and received
by the lower Court counsel on 20.11.2019. After receipt of the
certified copy the lower Court counsel informed the petitioner on
29.11.2019 about the certified copy and met the lower Court
counsel on 06.12.2019 and got the certified copy and the lower
court counsel stated the petitioner that there are good grounds
Page No.# 4/5
for appeal and asked the petitioner to discuss the matter with
High Court counsel and accordingly the petitioner went to meet
the High Court counsel on 09.12.2019 regarding filing of the
appeal but could not meet the High Court Lawyer on 09.12.19 for
'Law & Order Problem' in regards to CAB and went on 19.12.19
when the situation became little normal and handed over the
certified copy to the High Court Lawyer asked the petitioner to
come on 03.01.2020 after holidays for discussion but the
petitioner could not go on 03.01.2020 for illness and went on
10.01.2020, but could not meet the High Court Lawyer on
10.01.2020 as he went for 'Magh Bihu' holidays and the petitioner
came back home and again went to meet the High Court Counsel
on 31.01.2020 after 'Bihu' 'Republic Day', 'Sree Panchami'
Holiday and discussed over the matter and the High Court
counsel asked the petitioner to come on 13.02.2020 with his fees
etc. , but because of financial constraint the petitioner could not
meet the High Court counsel on 13.02.2020 and went on
21.02.2020 but found the lawyer absent because of 'Siva Ratri'
and again went on 06.03.2020 and paid the fees and the High
Court Lawyer asked the petitioner to come on 17.03.2020
accordingly the petitioner went on 17.03.2020 and met the High
Court Lawyer but because of "Covid-19 Pandemic' , 'Lock Down'
etc. the appeal could not be prepared and ultimately when
situation becomes little bit normal the petitioner got the Appeal
prepared and this petition for condonation of delay and it is filed
on 5.11.2020.
5. That the petitioner is a illiterate / rustic villager and he
practically don't know all these legal aspects such as filing time
period of Appeal etc and moreover because of his grievous
injury-disability & financial constraint he could not meet the Lower
Court/ High Court Lawyers frequently for discussion about the
Page No.# 5/5
matters pertaining to the case and the 'Covid-19 Pandemic',
'Lock Down' etc. has further deteriorated the situation and this _
delay was not intentional , though the petitioner tried his level
best for discussion and to get the appeal prepared but he failed in
spite of his efforts and thus the delay was not intentional."
Upon hearing the learned counsels appearing for the
parties and upon consideration of the grounds urged, this
Court is of the view that the grounds urged can be considered
to be sufficient explanation of the delay that has occurred in
filing the accompanying appeal. The explanation put forth for
the delay that has occurred does not reveal any mala fides nor
can it be seen as a dilatory strategy. On the grounds urged in
the I.A., this Court finds that the delay that had occurred in
filing the accompanying appeal can be condoned. Relying upon
the principle laid down in N. Balakrishnan -Vs- M.
Krishnamurthy reported in (1998) 7 SCC 123, the delay of 64
days in filing the accompanying appeal against the Judgment
and Order dated 11.10.2019, passed by the learned Member,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhubri, Assam in MAC Case
No. 267/2016 is hereby condoned.
Interlocutory Application is accordingly allowed and
disposed of.
Registry is directed to number the accompanying appeal
and list it before the Court after 2 (two) weeks.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
