Gauhati High Court
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Jesmin Begum on 9 October, 2023
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010016812018
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/178/2018
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, ULUBARI, GUWAHATI 7,
DIST. KAMRUP, ASSAM.
VERSUS
JESMIN BEGUM
R/O VILL. KADAMTAL, MADHUPUR, P.O. NAGAON, P.S. SADAR, DIST.
NAGAON, ASSAM.
2:MAHMUDA BEGUM
R/O VILL. KADAMTAL
MADHUPUR
P.O. NAGAON
P.S. SADAR
DIST. NAGAON
ASSAM
3:MIRJAN ALI
ALL ARE R/O VILL. KADAMTAL
MADHUPUR
P.O. NAGAON
P.S. SADAR
DIST. NAGAON
ASSAM.
4:ABUL KABIL BHUYAN
VILL. CHINAPATTY
AZAD NAGAR
Page No.# 2/5
BYLANE 1
P.O. NAGAON
P.S. SADAR
DIST. NAGAON
ASSAM.
5:ANWAR HUSSAIN
VILL. HEDAYAT NAGAR
WARD NO. 13
P.S. SADAR
DIST. NAGAON
ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S K GOSWAMI
Advocate for the Respondent :
Linked Case : MACApp./36/2018
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
A CO. REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 REPRESENTED BY
ITS REGIONAL MANAGER
ULUBARI
GUWAHATI-7
DIST. KAMRUP
ASSAM.
VERSUS
JESMIN BEGUM
R/O VILL. KADAMTAL
MADHUPUR
P.O. NAGAON
P.S. SADAR
DIST. NAGAON
ASSAM
PIN 782003
2:MAHMUDA BEGUM
R/O VILL KADAMTAL
Page No.# 3/5
MADHUPUR
P.O. NAGAON
P.S. SADAR
DIST. NAGAON
ASSAM
PIN 782003
3:MIRJAN ALI
R/O VILL KADAMTAL
MADHUPUR
P.O. NAGAON
P.S. SADAR
DIST. NAGAON
ASSAM
PIN 782003
4:ABDUL KABIL BHUYAN
VILL. CHINAPATTY
AZAD NAGAR
BYLANE 1
P.O. NAGAON
PIN 782001
P.S. SADAR
DIST. NAGAON
ASSAM.
5:ANWAR HUSSAIN
VILL. HEDAYAT NAGAR
WARD NO. 13
P.S. SADAR
DIST. NAGAON
ASSAM
PIN 782447
------------
Advocate for : MR. S K GOSWAMI
Advocate for : appearing for JESMIN BEGUM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NANI TAGIA
ORDER
Date : 09.10.2023
Heard Mr. S. K. Goswami, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. M.
Talukdar, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of Opposite Parties No. 1, 2 & 3.
Page No.# 4/5
By order, dated 28.11.2022, notice on respondent No. 4 has been deemed to be served.
Pursuant to the same order, dated 28.11.2022, the applicant has served notice to the
respondent No. 5 by dasti through the Assistant Jailor, Central Jail, Nagaon, and to that effect;
an affidavit, dated 26.07.2023, has also been filed which has been perused by the Court. In
view of the above; notice on respondent No. 5 is also deemed to be served.
This is an application preferred by the applicant/Insurance Company under Section 5 of
the Limitation Act, 1963, praying for condonation of delay of 237 days, in preferring the
connected appeal being MAC. A. 36/2018 which appeal is directed against the judgment &
award, dated 10.01.2017, passed by the learned Member, MACT, Nagaon, in MAC Case No.
573/2014.
The reasons for the delay in not preferring the connected MAC. appeal within the
stipulated time have been explained in the accompanying application stating that Insurance
Company suspecting some foul play regarding involvement of the offending vehicle bearing
Reg. No. AS-02/H2787 in the alleged accident on the ground that different MACT cases have
been filed involving the same insured driver claiming compensation in MACT Nagaon wherein
same Md. Anwar Hussain was the alleged driver and Abul Kabil Bhuyan was the insured. As a
result, in the process of ascertaining the information regarding various MACT claim petitions
filed before the MACT Nagaon, and thereafter, taking several steps for filing of the connected
appeal by the Office of the applicant; the delay, in question, has occurred.
The Opposite Parties No. 1, 2 & 3, have filed an objection contending that the delay of
237 days have not been properly explained by the applicant requiring condonation by the
Court.
Page No.# 5/5
Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and on perusal of the
materials placed on record, more particularly, the explanation provided by the applicant in
paragraphs No. 4, 5 & 6 of the accompanying application and having regard to the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act, 1963, needs to be dealt very liberally with a justice oriented approach; the delay of 237
days in preferring the connected appeal being MAC. A. 36/2018, is hereby condoned in the
interest of justice.
The interlocutory application stands allowed and accordingly stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
