Gauhati High Court
Mrs. Shitoli Hari vs Loknath Phukan And 3 Ors on 7 September, 2022
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010197242017
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/1885/2017
MRS. SHITOLI HARI,
W/O LATE RAKHAL CHANDRA HARI, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O
SHAHID DILIOP HUJURI PATH, GUWAHATI-6, SARUMOTORIA, P.S. DISPUR,
DIST. KAMRUP M, ASSAM.
VERSUS
LOKNATH PHUKAN and 3 ORS,
S/O LATE RIKHESWAR PHUKAN, R/O PADUMONI GAON, MOWKHOWA
MOUZA, DIST. GOLAGHAT, ASSAM-785625
2:BIPUL SAIKIA
S/O LATE POKA SAIKIA
R/O VILL. DANGDHARA
P.O. MADHAPUR
TITABOR
DIST. JORHAT
ASSAM 785630
3:THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF REGIONAL MANAGER
REGIONAL OFFICE
G.S. ROAD
CHRISTIANBASTI
GUWAHATI-5
DIST. KAMRUP M
ASSAM.
4:THE BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER BRANCH OFFICE 2-B
Page No.# 2/6
5TH FLOOR
CENTRE POINT
G.S. ROAD
ULUBARI
OPPOSITE BORA SERVICE STATION GUNWAHNATI-7
DIST. KAMRUP M
ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.R SAIKIA
Advocate for the Respondent : MR.A TALUKDARR-3
Linked Case : MAC.App./294719/2017 (Filing Number)
MRS SHITOLI HARI
VERSUS
SRI LOKNATH PHUKAN and 3 ORS
2:THE PRASAR BHARATI
THROUGH THE DIRECTOR GENERAL
AIR
AKASHVANI BHAVAN
PARLIAMENT STREET
NEW DELHI-110001
3:THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL
ALL INDIA RADIO
CHANDMARI GUWAHATI 781003V
4:THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL
DOORDARSHAN KENDRA
AIZAWL 796001
5:THE STATION DIRECTOR
ALL INDIA RADIO
PALACE COMPOUND
IMPHAL
Page No.# 3/6
------------
Advocate for : MR.R SAIKIA
Advocate for : appearing for SRI LOKNATH PHUKAN and 3 ORS
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA
ORDER
Date : 07.09.2022
Heard Mr. K. R. Bora, learned counsel for the applicant
and Mr. K. K. Bhatta, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and
Ms. P. Borthakur, learned counsel for the respondent No.4.
2. Although Office Note reflects that service on respondent
No.1 is completed, none appears on behalf of respondent No.1
when the matter is called up. In so far as respondent No.2 is
concerned Office Note reflects that the service is not
completed.
3. This Interlocutory Application has been filed seeking
condonation of delay of 474 days that had occurred in
preferring the accompanying appeal against the Judgment and
Award dated 30.09.2015 passed by learned Member, Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal No.3, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, in MAC
Case No. 1730/2012.
4. This appeal has been filed by the applicant being
aggrieved by the Judgment and Award dated 30.09.2015
passed by learned Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
No.3, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, in MAC Case No. 1730/2012
whereby the claim petition of the applicant was allowed and
an amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only was
Page No.# 4/6
directed to be paid by the Opposite Party No.4 namely, the
respondent No.3 herein i.e. United India Insurance Company.
5. No direction have been issued against any other
respondent.
6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant
that the delay was unintentional and the same was caused for
reasons beyond the control of the applicant. It is submitted
that on the grounds urged the prayer for condonation of delay
may be allowed and the I/A be allowed condoning the delay of
474 days.
7. The learned counsel appearing for respondents No.3 and
4 does not object to the prayer made for condonation of delay.
8. The learned counsels for the parties have been heard
and the pleadings on record have been perused. From the
impugned Judgment and Award, it is seen that the Tribunal
proceed ex-parte against the respondent No.2, who was
arrayed as Opposite Party No.3 before the Tribunal. The
applicant has urged the following grounds in support of his
prayer for condonation of delay:-
"4. That in this connection, I beg to state that the petition
filed by the petitioner is entirely motivated and is nothing
but a desperate attempt to cover up his latches in not
pursuing the MAC Appeal in time and has now come up
with the petition to get the delay condoned by making
absolutely false and incorrect averments. Hence, I submit
that no case for condonation of delay in filing the MAC
Appeal has been made out and the petition being devoid of
merit may kindly be rejected and turned down."
Page No.# 5/6
9. It is strenuously urged by the learned counsel for the
applicant that the entire delay is caused because of the lack of
communication of the learned Advocate, before whom the
applicant had approached seeking legal advice.
10. Be that as it may since there is no objection filed by
the respondents opposing the prayer for condonation of delay,
this Court is of the view that the prayer for condonation of
delay can be considered without awaiting for the service of
Notice on respondent No.2.
11. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties.
Perused the grounds urged for condonation of delay.
12. Upon due consideration of the submissions as well as
the grounds urged, this Court is of the view that the grounds
urged can be considered to be sufficient explanation of the
delay that has 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 a dilatory strategy.
On the grounds urged in the I.A., this Court finds that the
delay that had occurred in filing the accompanying appeal can
be condoned. Relying upon the principle of law laid down in N.
Balakrishnan -Vs- M. Krishnamurthy reported in (1998) 7 SCC
123, the delay of 474 days in filing the accompanying appeal
against the Judgment and Award dated 30.09.2015 passed by
learned Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal No.3,
Kamrup (M), Guwahati, in MAC Case No. 1730/2012 is hereby
Page No.# 6/6
condoned.
13. Interlocutory Application is accordingly allowed and
disposed of.
14. Registry is directed to number the accompanying appeal
and list it before the Court after 2 (two) weeks.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
