Sri Dadu Bora @ Sri Manoranjan Bora ... vs Sri Madhab Bora And 2 Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 1871 Gua

                                                                   Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010102552018




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

                                Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/1688/2018

            SRI DADU BORA @ SRI MANORANJAN BORA (INJURED )
            REPRESENTED BY HIS WIFE SMT PURBALI BORA , R/O VILL. BHATEMORA
            P.O. AND P.S. PULIBOR, DIST. JORHAT ,(ASSAM)



            VERSUS

            SRI MADHAB BORA AND 2 ORS
            S/O SRI NARESWAR BORA R/O VILLAGE CHORAIMARWA GAON, P.O.AND
            P.S. JORHATE PIN. NO. 785001 DIST. JORHAT (ASSAM) (OWNER OF
            VEHICLE NO. AS 01 P 0863)

            2:MD IMDAD ALI
             S/O MD ESMAIL ALI
            R/O VILLAGE BALIGAON
            P.O.AND P.S. JORHATE PIN. NO. 785001
            DIST. JORHAT (ASSAM)

            (DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE NO. AS 01/P/0863)

            3:UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD
             JORHAT BRANCH
             HAVING ONE OF ITS NORTH EASTERN REGIONAL OFFICE AT CHIRISTION
            BASTI
             GUWAHATI 78100

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. S K JAIN

Advocate for the Respondent :
                                                              Page No.# 2/4


Linked Case : MACApp./388/2018

SRI DADU BORA @ SRI MANORANJAN BORA
REPRESENTED BY HIS WIFE SMT PURBALI BORA
 R/O VILL. BHATEMORA
P.O. AND P.S. PULIBOR
 DIST. JORHAT
(ASSAM)


VERSUS

SRI MADHAB BORA AND 2 ORS
S/O SRI NARESWAR BORA
R/O VILLAGE CHORAIMARWA GAON

P.O.AND P.S. JORHATE PIN. NO. 785001
DIST. JORHAT (ASSAM)

(OWNER OF VEHICLE NO. AS 01 P 0863)

2:MD IMDAD ALI
S/O MD ESMAIL ALI
R/O VILLAGE BALIGAON
P.O.AND P.S. JORHATE PIN. NO. 785001
DIST. JORHAT (ASSAM)

(DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE NO. AS 01/P/0863)
 3:UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD
JORHAT BRANCH
 HAVING ONE OF ITS NORTH EASTERN REGIONAL OFFICE AT CHIRISTION
BASTI
 GUWAHATI 781005
 ------------
 Advocate for : MR. S K JAIN
Advocate for : MR. R GOSWAMI (R3) appearing for SRI MADHAB BORA AND 2
ORS
                                                                           Page No.# 3/4

                                   BEFORE
                       HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NANI TAGIA

                                        ORDER

Date : 30.05.2022

Heard Ms. P. C. B. Nair, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Ms. N. Saikia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 3.

Ms. Nair, learned counsel, submits that since the connected appeal has been filed for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, the respondents No. 1 & 2, who are the owner and driver of the offending vehicle, respectively, may not be necessary parties to this proceeding and therefore, prays for striking-off the names of the respondents No. 1 & 2 from the array of the respondents in this interlocutory application as well as the connected appeal.

Prayer is allowed.

At the risk of the appellant, Registry shall strike-off the name of respondents No. 1 & 2 from the array of the respondents in the Cause Title of this application as well as the connected appeal.

This is an application preferred by the applicant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, praying for condonation of delay of 168 days, in preferring the connected appeal which is directed against the judgment & award, dated 18.08.2017, passed by the learned Member, MACT No. 3, Kamrup(Metro) at Guwahati, in MAC Case No. 1583/2013.

Page No.# 4/4

The reason for the delay in not preferring the connected MAC. appeal within the stipulated time has been explained by the applicant in the accompanying application, stating that the applicant was suffering from mental shock, anxiety and trauma due to which, the applicant could not contact the lawyer till 18.11.2017 despite due diligence. Subsequently, the applicant could meet his lawyer on 04.04.2018 and upon discussion on the merits of the case, the connected appeal was filed and in the process, the delay of 168 days have occurred.

Upon consideration of the explanation provided by the applicant in the accompanying application, as highlighted hereinabove; I am satisfied that there was no laches and negligence on the part of the applicant and the applicant was prevented by a sufficient cause in not preferring the connected MAC. appeal within the stipulated time period.

In view of the above, the delay of 168 days in preferring the connected appeal is hereby condoned in the interest of justice.

The interlocutory application stands allowed and accordingly stands disposed of.

Registry shall list the connected appeal for admission hearing in due course.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant