Gauhati High Court
Mr Biren Changmai vs New India Assurance Company Ltd And 3 Ors on 24 November, 2023
Author: Ajit Borthakur
Bench: Ajit Borthakur
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010230192018
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/3686/2018
MR BIREN CHANGMAI
OWNER OF THE VEHICLE NO. AS-23-AC-0286 (TATA MAGIC TAXI), S/O
DURGESWAR CHANGMAI, R/O KAKOPATHAR TINALI, KAKOPATHAR, P.O.
AND P.S. KAKOPATHAR, DIST. TINSUKIA, ASSAM.
VERSUS
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD AND 3 ORS
A GENERAL INSURANCE CO. HAVING ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE AT PLAZA
COMPLEX, RANGAGORA ROAD, TINSUKIA TOWN, P.O. AND DIST.
TINSUKIA, ASSAM BEING REPRESENTE BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER
AND HAVING ITS REGISTTERED AND HEAD OFFICE AT NEW INDIA
ASSURANCE BUILDING 87 MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD, FORT MUMBAI
AND ITS OWNED BY GOVT. OF INDIA.
2:MISS MINAKSHI BHARALI
D/O SRI LOHIT BHARALI
R/O MILAN TIRTHA
DOOMDOOMA TOWN
P.O.AND P.S. DOOMDOMA
DIST.TINSUKIA
ASSAM.
3:SRI BIREN CHETIA
S/O SRI BHABEN CHETIA
R/O AHOM PATHAR
KACHAI MAITHANG GAON
P.O. AND P.S. KAKOPATHAR
DIST. TINSUKIA (ASSAM) (DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE NO. AS-23-AC-0286
TATA MAGIC)
4:THE DEPUTY TRANSPORT OFFICER
Page No.# 2/3
TINSUKIA
ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A K BHUYAN
Advocate for the Respondent : MR. K K BHATTA (R1)
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BORTHAKUR
ORDER
Date : 24.11.2023
Heard Ms. B.Bhuyan, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. K.K.Bhatta, learned counsel
for the opposite party No.1.
By this interlocutory application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the applicant has
prayed for condoning a delay of 1662 days in filing the connected appeal against the
Judgment and Orders, dated 16.12.2013 and 13.08.2018 passed in MACT Case No.96/2009.
Mr. K.K.Bhatta, learned counsel for the opposite party has cited the grounds as stated in the
written objection in the connected MAC Appeal 908/2018.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the averments made in
paragraph 8 of the application, it is seen that the applicant was not aware of the passing of
the impugned Judgment and order, dated 16.12.2013 as he was not heard on the day and as
such, it was fault on the part of the counsel. The applicant came to know about the judgment
only on 09.06.2015 when he received summons in connection with the Money Suit
No.19/2015. Further, it is clear from the Judgment that the D.T.O., Tinsukia and driver of the
offending vehicle i.e. the respondent No. 3 were not made parties in the Money Suit No.
19/2015.
Having considered the above aspects of the matter, the delay of 1662 days in preferring the
connected MAC Appeal is hereby allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs. 20,000/- (Twenty
Thousand) to be paid by the applicant to the Insurance Company as condition precedent.
The delay of 1662 days in preferring the connected MAC Appeal is accordingly condoned.
The interlocutory application stands disposed of.
Interim order, dated 09.11.2008 stands vacated.
JUDGE
Page No.# 3/3
Comparing Assistant
