Gauhati High Court
United India Insurance Company Ltd vs Moina Kumar And 3 Ors on 8 August, 2025
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010250332024
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/86/2025
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
HAVING ITS REGISTERED AND HEAD OFFICE AT 24, WHITES ROAD,
CHENNAI-600014 AND ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT CHIBBAR HOUSE, 1ST
FLOOR, G.S. ROAD, NEAR DISPUR POST OFFICE, GUWAHATI, KAMRUP
(M), PIN-781005 REP. BY THE REGIONAL MANAGER, GUWAHATI
REGIONAL OFFICE.
VERSUS
MOINA KUMAR AND 3 ORS
W/O. LATE PRADIP KUMAR
2:BANASMITA KUMARI
D/O. LATE PRADIP KUMAR
3:DIPJYOTI KUMAR
S/O. LATE PRADIP KUMAR
ALL ARE R/O. VILL. NO. 4
RAJGARH
P/S. UDALGURI
DIST. UDALGURI
ASSAM
PIN-784509.
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT CARE OF SRI REBAKANTA KUMAR
VILL. DHOKAPARA
P/S. SIPAJHAR
DIST. DARRANG
ASSAM
PIN-784145.
(RESPONDENT NO. 2 AND 3 BEING MINOR IS REPRESENTED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO. 1)
Page No.# 2/3
4:HAR MOHAN MALAKAR
S/O/ DHARMA KANTA MALAKAR
R/O. H/NO. 18
JOYNAGAR
SIXMILE
P/S. KHANAPARA
DIST. KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
PIN-781028.
PRESENT ADDRESS- VILL. DHARAMJULI
P/O. DHARAMJULI
P/S. DIMAKUCHI
DIST. UDALGURI
PIN-784509
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR T KALITA, MR. A KAKATI
Advocate for the Respondent : MRS M D CHOWDHURY (R-1), MR N BARUAH(R-1)
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN
ORDER
08.08.2025
Heard Mr. T. Kalita, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant and also heard Ms.
M.D. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3.
This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with Section 173
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is preferred by the applicant for condonation of delay of
87 days in filing the connected appeal against the judgment and award dated 29.05.2024
passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Darrang at Mangaldai, in MAC (Death)
Case No.80/2018.
Mr. Kalita, learned counsel for the applicant submits that after pronouncement of
the judgment and award on 29.05.2024, the applicant herein had obtained certified copy
of the judgment and award and thereafter, forwarded the same to the Branch Office of
the applicant insurance company situated at Mangaldai and thereafter, the same was
Page No.# 3/3
transmitted to the Regional Office at Guwahati and thereafter, the matter was forwarded
to the dealing Advocate, but the dealing Advocate had not furnished his opinion and
thereafter, the matter was entrusted to him (Mr. Kalita) and after furnishing of opinion by
him, it was decided to file an appeal against the impugned judgment and award and in
the process some delay has occurred and the said delay is of 87 days and the same has
been explained in paragraph Nos.5--8 of the application and that he has arguable point
to be heard on merit in the appeal and therefore, it is contended to condone the same.
On the other hand, Ms. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1--
3/claimants has opposed the application on the ground that the delay of 87 days in
preferring the connected appeal has not sufficiently been explained.
Having heard the submission of learned counsel for both the parties, I have
carefully gone through the application and the documents placed on record and the
statement and averment made in paragraph Nos.5--8 of the application and it appears
that though there is no day to day explanation for delay, yet, as a whole the delay has
been explained and under the given facts and circumstances on the record, the same
appears to be sufficient and accordingly, the delay of 87 days in preferring the connected
appeal stands condoned.
Now, the Registry shall register and number the connected appeal and list the
same before the Court as soon as practicable.
In terms of above, the I.A. stands disposed of.
Sd/- Robin Phukan
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
