Gauhati High Court
Mrs. Indu Basfor vs Khagen Saikia And 2 Ors on 26 August, 2022
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010048532017
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/3628/2017
MRS. INDU BASFOR
W/O SRI GAUTAM BASFOR, R/O VILL. GOLIA ARABARI, P.O. PANIBHARAL,
P.S. BISWANATH CHARIALI, PIN 784176, ASSAM.
VERSUS
KHAGEN SAIKIA and 2 ORS,
S/O SRI BHOGESWAR SAIKIA, VILL. SOLLENGI, P.O. ELLENGI SATRA, PIN
784168, P.S. GOHPUR, DIST. SONITPUR, ASSAM.
2:RIPON SAIKIA
S/O SRI BHOGESWAR SAIKIA
VILL. SOLLENGI
P.O. ELLENGI SATRA
PIN 784168
P.S. GOHPUR
DIST. SONITPUR
ASSAM.
3:THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD
TEZPUR BRANCH
DUGGAR MANSION
P.O./P.S. TEZPUR
DIST. SONITPUR
PIN 784001
ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R DE
Advocate for the Respondent :
Page No.# 2/6
Linked Case :
MRS. INDU BASFOR
VERSUS
KHAGEN SAIKIA and 2 ORS
2:THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
HIGHER EDUCATION
GOVT. OF ASSAM
KAHILIPARA
GUWAHATI-19
3:THE PRINCIPAL
MANOHARI DEVI KANOI GIRLS COLLEGE
DIBRUGARH
ASSAM.
4:THE GOVERNING BODY
REPRESENTED BY THE SECY. MANOHARI DEVI KANOI GIRLS COLLEGE
DIBRUGARH
ASSAM.
------------
Advocate for : MR.R DE
Advocate for : appearing for KHAGEN SAIKIA and 2 ORS
Page No.# 3/6
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA
ORDER
26.08.2022
Heard Mr. R. Dey, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. M. Saikia,
learned counsel for the respondent No. 3.
2. Office note dated 16.08.2022 reflects that as per process server's report,
notices have been served on the respondents No. 1 & 2 and their mother had
accepted the notices. This Court considers this to be proper service of notice on
respondents No. 1 & 2. However, inspite of service of notice, they are not
represented.
3. The applicant was the claimant in the claim petition filed before the MACT,
Biswanath Chariali, Sonitpur. The Tribunal vide the Judgment and Order dated
03.06.2016 in MAC Case No. 410/2010 awarded an amount of Rs. 15,01,947/-
(Rupees Fifteen Lakhs One Thousand Nine Hundred Forty Seven) Only as
compensation along with simple interest of Rs. 6% per annum from the date of
filing of the claim petition to the claimant. The compensation was directed to be
paid by the Insurance Company.
4. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant/claimant
is aggrieved by the amount of compensation awarded in view of the fact that
certain documents in respect of the last drawn salary by the late husband of the
applicant, who was the victim, was not taken into account by the Tribunal.
Accordingly, the applicant submits that the compensation awarded has not been
rightly calculated and proper calculation is necessary with reference to the said
salary certificates. Consequently compensation awarded is far less than the
amount that ought to have been awarded. Being aggrieved the Statutory Appeal
has been preferred by the claimant seeking enhancement of the compensation
Page No.# 4/6
awarded. While filing this appeal a delay of 383 days had occurred. As such this
Interlocutory Application has been filed seeking condonation of the delay that
had occurred.
5. The learned counsels for the parties have been heard. Pleadings on record
have also been duly perused.
6. The grounds urged in support of the prayer for condonation of delay are
as under:-
"5. After recording of evidence in this claim petition, the petitioner on dated
28.05.2016 went to her parental home having at Hatwa Gram, Ward No. 3, Deoria,
Uttar Pradesh along with her husband for his treatment at Baranashi. Since then she
stayed there till the first week of June, 2017. Unfortunately, she had lost her phone in
her rail journey and as such she could not keep contact with her appointed advocate
The engaged advocate also could not contact her and inform her about the passing of
the judgment and Order in the said claim petition due to such reason as mentioned
hereinabove. Accordingly, the petitioner/appellant was unaware of the passing of the
aforesaid judgment and order since long and subsequently, it was informed to her on
15.06.2017 through her then engaged advocate, when she return back to her in-laws
home along with her husband. The petitioner/appellant was advised by her advocate
for obtaining certified copies of the documents in the case and accordingly, copies of
the Judgment and Order and other relevant documents were applied on 20.06.2017
which were received on 23.06.2017. After going through the entire documents and
judgment, the petitioner/appellant was advised that she would be required to
approach the Hon'ble gauhati High Court for preferring an appeal against the
Judgment and Order for enhancement of the awarded amount.
6. The petitioner states that as per advice of her counsel, she thereafter, approached
the present counsel for preferring an appeal. Since the petitioner does not have any
source of income, she was required to look for sources in order to manage the
required expenses for filing the appeal. It is respectfully stated that the knowledge of
passing of the Judgment and Order came to the petitioner when she returned to her
in-laws home along with her husband on 15.06.2017 but she was not in a position to
prefer the appeal by approaching the Hon'ble Court immediately after receiving the
certified copies and the same was beyond her control.
7. The petitioner has no source of income and in view of her financial difficulties,
she required some time for managing the expenses for preferring this appeal. Further,
though the judgment and Order was passed on 03.06.2016 in MAC No. 410/2010, but
Page No.# 5/6
due to communication gap between her and engaged advocate for the reason stated
hereinabove, the petitioner could know about the passing of judgment and order on
15.06.2017. Furthermore, the petitioner due to her financial problem was not in a
position to prefer the appeal by approaching the Hon'ble Court within short time from
receiving of the certified copies on 23.06.2017. It is therefore respectfully stated that
there has not been any intentional delay or lapses on her part in preferring the appeal
before the Hon'ble Court and as such, the delay may kindly be condoned in the
interest of justice and equality."
7. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company does not object to the
prayer for seeking condonation of delay. Although respondents No. 1 & 2 were
duly served notices, no objection opposing the prayer for condonation of delay
has been filed on their behalf. A perusal of the Order under Appeal reveals that
the Tribunal allowed the claim of the claimant and the entire amount of
compensation was directed to be paid by the Insurance Company. No directions
were issued against the respondents No. 1 & 2. Since the appeal has been
preferred by the claimant for enhancement of the compensation awarded, this
Court is of the view that the prayer for condonation of delay can be heard in the
absence of R-1 & R-2 and as no prejudice will be caused to them.
8. Upon hearing the learned counsel 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 had
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
dilatory tactics. On the grounds urged in the Interlocutory Application, this Court
finds that the delay that had occurred in filing the accompanying appeal can be
condoned.
9. Relying upon the principle laid down in N. Balakrishnan Vs. M
Krishnamurthy reported in (1998) 7 SCC 123, the delay of 383 days in filing the
accompanying appeal against the Judgment and Award dated 03.06.2016
Page No.# 6/6
passed by the learned Member, MACT, Biswanath Chariali, Sonitpur in MAC Case
No. 410/2010 is hereby condoned.
10. The interlocutory application is, accordingly, allowed and disposed of.
11. Registry is directed to number the accompanying appeal and list it before
the Court after two weeks.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
