Page No.# 1/3 vs Smti Tutumoni Sutradhar And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 119 Gua

                                                                      Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010012852019




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

                                Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/236/2019

            SMTI BINA BORA AND ANR
            W/O DILIP KUMAR BORA, R/O JAYA NAGAR, KHANAPARA, P.S. DISPUR,
            GUWAHATI, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM.

            2: RANJIT BORA
             S/O LATE DILIP KR. BORA
             R/O JOYA NAGAR
             KHANAPARA
             P.S. DISPUR
             DIST. KAMRUP
             PIN 78100

            VERSUS

            SMTI TUTUMONI SUTRADHAR AND ANR
            W/O SRI PRADIP SUTRADHAR OF KHANAPARA, P.S. BASISTHA, DIST.
            KAMRUP, PIN 781002

            2:M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD
             REPRESENTED BY SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER
             DIVISIONAL OFFICE NO. 1 AT BHANGAGARH
             GUWAHATI (OPPOSITE PARTY NO. 3 IN MAC CASE NO. 1268/10

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MRS S GOSWAMI

Advocate for the Respondent : MR G S BORO




             Linked Case :

            SMTI BINA BORA AND ANR
                                                                          Page No.# 2/3




              VERSUS

              SMTI TUTUMONI SUTRADHAR AND ANR



              ------------
              Advocate for :
              Advocate for : appearing for SMTI TUTUMONI SUTRADHAR AND ANR



                                    BEFORE
                   HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA

                                        ORDER

11.01.2022.

Heard Ms. S. Goswami, the learned counsel appearing for the applicants.

Also heard Mr. G.S. Boro, learned counsel for the respondents.

This is an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 praying for condonation of 1336 days of delay in filing the connected appeal.

The primary ground taken by the petitioner is that she is more than 60 years old with different ailments. Moreover, she has financial problems and for these reasons, the delay occurred.

The insurance company has objected to the prayer for condonation of delay and stated that the delay has not been properly explained.

I have gone through the impugned judgment passed in MAC 1268/2010. The petitioner is the owner of a vehicle which was given on rent Assam Police and on the day of the accident, the son of the petitioner was driving the said Page No.# 3/3

vehicle.

The learned Tribunal held that since the vehicle was on rent, the petitioner is not entitled to drive the vehicle and that is why the Tribunal held that the petitioner being the owner of the vehicle is liable to pay the compensation.

Now, this Court is of the view that there is a substantial question relating to administration of justice. If the delay is not condoned, there may be injustice being caused to the applicant, for that reason the delay deserves to be condoned. Here the delay stands condoned.

The Registry is directed to register the connected appeal and list it after ensuing the bihu vacation.

The I/A stands disposed of.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant