Gauhati High Court
Hazera Khatun @ Hajera Khatun vs The Divisional Manager on 6 June, 2022
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010199842019
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/3446/2019
HAZERA KHATUN @ HAJERA KHATUN
W/O LT. JAYNAL ABEDIN, R/O VILL. KALBARI, P.S. ABHAYAPURI, DIST.
BONGAIGAON, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY
LIMITED AND 2 ORS
BONGAIGAON DIVISIONL OFFICE, CHAPAGURI ROAD, BONGAIGAON, P.O.
AND P.S. BONGAIGAON, ASSAM
2:JUMAR ALI
S/O PACHA SK
R/O VILL. 3 NO. GORAIMARI
P.O. MONAKOCHA
P.S. BIJNI
DIST. CHIRANG
BTAD
ASSAM
3:ABDUL BARSHIK
S/O ABU BAKKAR
R/O VILL. NIZ DANUGAON
P.O. SULIAKATA
DIST. CHIRANG
BTAD
ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M KHAN
Advocate for the Respondent : MR A N DAS (R1)
Page No.# 2/3
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
ORDER
Date : 06-06-2022
Heard Mr. M Khan, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. AN
Das, learned counsel for respondent No.1.
This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for
condonation of delay of 222 days in filing the accompanying appeal.
It has been mentioned in paragraph 3 of the said application that
the Member MACT, Bongaigaon vide judgment dated 11.10.2017 had
disposed of the said claim proceedings. It further appears from the perusal
of the said application that one Mr. MH Khan was given the responsibility by
the applicants for the purpose of filing of the appeal before this court and in
respect to which fees was also paid to the said counsel. However, the
counsel did not file the appeal and it was only on 07.05.2019 the applicant
came to learn that the said counsel Mr. MH Khan had lost the file.
Thereupon, the applicants approached the present counsel Mr. M Khan.
Upon his advice that the file had to be recreated, thereupon on
21.08.2019, the connected appeal was filed. In doing so, the delay of 222
days had occurred in filing the appeal.
An objection was filed by the opposite party, wherein it was
mentioned that the grounds and reasons stated in the application cannot be
considered to be sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 5 of the
Limitation Act, as the statements made in the application is nothing but a
concocted story.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and given my
anxious consideration to the matter.
Page No.# 3/3
It is no-longer res integra that limitation imposed by the statute is
not for destroying the rights but to ensure that the parties approached the
Courts in order to ventilate their rights without any unreasonable delay.
Taking into account that the applicants herein are the widow and
the mother of the deceased and further also taking into account the award
passed by the learned MACT Bongaigaon whereby no compensation has
been granted on the question of future prospect as well as also for parental
consortium, this Court deems it appropriate to condone the delay of 222
days.
It is also relevant to mention that Section 168 of the MV Act, 1988
stipulates that the claimants are entitled to just and fair compensation and
the various judgments of the Supreme Court have also observed that a
liberal contention should be adopted in the cases pertaining to Motor
Vehicles Act, this Court therefore deems it appropriate to condone the delay
subject to imposition of the cost of Rs.5,000/-. The applicants shall deposit
the said amount to the registry of this Court and the opposite party herein
shall be at liberty to withdraw the same.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
