Shri Bhabananda Das vs Regional Manager National ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 4277 Gua

                                                                       Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010216962018




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

                                Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/3525/2018

            SHRI BHABANANDA DAS
            S/O LATE GOVINDA DAS, PANDU, SADILAPUR,P.S. JALUKBARI,
            GUWAHATI-14, DIST. KAMRUP (ASSAM)



            VERSUS

            REGIONAL MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD AND 2 ORS
            NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. G.S .ROAD, BHANGAGARH, GUWAHATI-
            5, (INSURER OF THE SWIFT DZIRE NO. AS-07/F-7576)

            2:TIBRAJYOTI BARUAH
             S/O LATE N.K. BARUAH
            VILL. DHALPUR
             BIHPURIA
             P.S. BIHPURIA
             DIST. LAKHIMPUR (ASSAM)
             PIN 784165 (OWNER OF AS-07/F-7576 SWIFT DZIRE)

            3:SRI PARESH BORAH
             S/O GANGADHAR BORAH
             GOHPUR
             SONITPUR (ASSAM)
             PIN 784168 (DRIVER OF THE SWIFT DZIRE BEARING REGN. NO. AS-07/F-
            7576

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MS D D ROY

Advocate for the Respondent : MRS. S ROY (R1)

Page No.# 2/3

BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

04.11.2022

Heard Ms. D. D. Roy, the learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. S. Roy, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1.

Taking into account that vide the impugned judgment and award dated 06.06.2017, the liability has been settled only upon the respondent No.1, this Court is of the opinion that the presence of the respondent Nos.2 & 3 is not necessary for the adjudication of the instant application.

This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with Section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for condoning the delay of 322 days in preferring the instant appeal.

The ground assigned in the instant application is that the applicant who is also the claimant suffered 50% permanent disability on account of the accident. It is under such circumstances there was difficulty on the part of the applicant to immediately contact the lawyer after the judgment and award was passed. It is also stated that the counsel for the applicant/claimant did not inform the applicant but rather informed somebody else and as such the applicant came to learn about the judgment and award dated 06.06.2017 subsequently.

The respondent No.1 has also filed an objection stating inter-alia that the reasons assigned do not come within the ambit of sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and as such the said delay of 322 days in preferring the appeal ought not to be condoned.

Page No.# 3/3

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and given my anxious consideration to the matter.

In deciding an application for condoning the delay that too in a matter pertaining to the beneficial legislation it is necessary that this Court needs to take a liberal approach, more so, taking into account that the applicant/claimant has suffered 50% permanent disabilities. However, it cannot also be lost sight of that on account of the delay if the compensation is enhanced, the respondent Insurance Company would be further burdened with interest for this period of 322 days.

Considering the above and balancing the equities, this Court condones the delay of 322 days with an observation that if in the circumstances the compensation is enhanced, the period of 322 days, which was the delay in preferring the appeal, shall be excluded while computing the interest.

In view of the above, the instant applicant stands disposed of.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant