Sri Sukumal Basumatary vs Musstt. Safia Khatun And 8 Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 923 Gua

                                                                 Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010310892019




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

                         Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/458/2020

         SRI SUKUMAL BASUMATARY
         SON OF SRI ANANDA BASUMATARY, R/O BHETAPARA, P.O. BELTOLA, P.S.
         BASISTHA, GUWAHATI, DIST. KAMRUP(M), ASSAM, PIN 781028



         VERSUS

         MUSSTT. SAFIA KHATUN AND 8 ORS
         W/O LATE ABDUR REZZQUE, R/O VILL. JOYBHUM (DEKHOWA), P.S.
         LAKHIPUR, DIST. GOALPARA, ASSAM, PIN 783129.

         2:MD. ZAKIR HUSSAIN
          S/O LATE ABDUR REZZQUE
          R/O VILL. JOYBHUM (DEKHOWA)
          P.S. LAKHIPUR
          DIST. GOALPARA
         ASSAM
          PIN 783129.

         3:MD. EBRAHIM ALI
          S/O LATE ABDUR REZZQUE
          R/O VILL. JOYBHUM (DEKHOWA)
          P.S. LAKHIPUR
          DIST. GOALPARA
         ASSAM
          PIN 783129.

         4:MD. TAYEB ALI
          S/O LATE ABDUR REZZQUE
          R/O VILL. JOYBHUM (DEKHOWA)
          P.S. LAKHIPUR
          DIST. GOALPARA
         ASSAM
                                                  Page No.# 2/4

             PIN 783129.

            5:YEAHIA
             S/O LATE ABDUR REZZQUE
             R/O VILL. JOYBHUM (DEKHOWA)
             P.S. LAKHIPUR
             DIST. GOALPARA
            ASSAM
             PIN 783129.

            6:MD. SADDAM HUSSAIN
             S/O LATE ABDUR REZZQUE
             R/O VILL. JOYBHUM (DEKHOWA)
             P.S. LAKHIPUR
             DIST. GOALPARA
            ASSAM
             PIN 783129.

            7:MISS KHODEJA KHATUN
             D/O LATE ABDUR REZZQUE
             R/O VILL. JOYBHUM (DEKHOWA)
             P.S. LAKHIPUR
             DIST. GOALPARA
            ASSAM
             PIN 783129.

            8:NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

             GOALPARA BRANCH
             REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER
             P.O. GOALPARA
             DIST. GOALPARA
             ASSAM
             PIN 783101.

            9:RANJIT RABHA
             S/O LATE PIULAL RABHA
             R/O GENDERAPARA
             P.O. KALYANPUR
             GOALPARA
             DIST. ASSAM
             PIN 783101

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR S KHOUND

Advocate for the Respondent : MR G S BORO
                                                                   Page No.# 3/4




                                :: BEFORE ::
                  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA

                                O R D E R

10.03.2023

Heard the learned counsel Mr. B. Laskar appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. A.J. Saikia, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party/Insurance Company.

This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 praying for condonation of delay of 770 days in preferring the connected appeal.

The Tribunal while awarding compensation directed that after payment of compensation the Insurance Company will be at liberty to recover the said amount from the registered owner of the vehicle. The reason for passing the said order was that the driver of the vehicle did not have a genuine and valid driving licence.

On the basis of an RTI application, it was discovered that the driver of the vehicle did not have a genuine and valid driving licence. The petitioner contended that nobody from the authority issuing the information was examined to prove the fact that the driver did not have a genuine and valid driving licence.

So far as the delay is concerned, the applicant submits that he did not have the knowledge of the judgment.

Page No.# 4/4

Mr. Saikia submits that the applicant did not even cross-examine the witnesses of the Insurance Company.

I have given my anxious considerations to the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides.

The law regarding condonation of delay always suggests that the courts should take a lenient approach while dealing with a prayer of condonation of delay. But that does not mean that the applicants do not have a duty to satisfactorily explain the delay.

Here, in this case, the applicant has taken casual approach. He failed to satisfactory explain the delay. Therefore, the delay of 770 days cannot be condoned.

Accordingly, the prayer for condonation of delay is rejected.

The Interlocutory Application stands disposed of.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant