Gauhati High Court
The Reliance General Insurance Co Ltd vs Udit Kumar Borah And 2 Ors on 17 March, 2025
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010222682024
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/3499/2024
THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 19, RELIANCE CENTRE, WALCHAND
HIRACHAND MARG, BALLARD ESTATE, MUMBAI 400001 AND
CORPORATE OFFICE AT 570, RECTIFIER HOUSE, NAGAUM CROSS, NEXT
TO ROYAL INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, WADALA (W), MUMBAI 400031 AND ONE
OF THE BRANCH OFFICE AT PRAG PLAZA, 5TH FLOOR G.S. ROAD,
BHANGAGARH, GUWAHATI, PIN-781005.
VERSUS
UDIT KUMAR BORAH AND 2 ORS
S/O. SRI PRASANNA KUMAR, BORAH.
2:BANDITA BORDOLOI
W/O. UDIT KUMAR BORAH
BOTH ARE RESIDENT OF VILL.- PAGHALI PANBARI
P/S. MIKIBHETA
DIST. MORIGAON
ASSAM
PIN-782001. (OPPOSITE PARTY NO.1 BEING REP. BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY
NO. 2 HIS WIFE)
3:BABU HUSSAIN
R/O. MORI MUSALMANGAON
P/O. AND P/S. MORIGAON
DIST. MORIGAON
ASSAM
PIN-782105
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A J SAIKIA, MR. S. PEGU
Advocate for the Respondent : MR. M TALUKDAR (R-1,2),
Page No.# 2/3
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN
ORDER
Date : 17.03.2025
Heard Mr. A.J. Saikia, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. M.
Talukdar, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2.
2. Office note date 06.03.2025, indicates that service in respect of opposite
party No. 3 has already been completed, but the opposite party No. 3 remains
unrepresented today.
3. This interlocutory application, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, is
preferred by the applicant for condonation of delay of 33 days in preferring the
connected appeal against the judgment and award dated 20.06.2024, passed by
the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Morigaon, in MAC Case No.
23/2019.
4. Mr. Saikia, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the appeal
against the judgment and award dated 20.06.2024, could not be preferred
within the stipulated period of time as certified copy of the said judgment and
award could not be obtained in time and that the same has duly been explained
in paragraph No. 4 of this application and as such, it is contended to condone
the delay of 33 days.
5. Mr. Talukdar, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 submits
that he has no objection in the event of condoning the aforesaid delay.
6. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, I
have carefully gone through the application and the documents placed on
Page No.# 3/3
record, and also perused the statements and averments made in paragraph No.
4 of this application.
7. It appears that the certified copy of the judgment and award dated
20.06.2024, could not be obtained in time and that the delay is not intentional,
rather it is circumstantial and the same has duly been explained in paragraph
No. 4 of this application and therefore, this Court is inclined to condone the
delay of 33 days in preferring the connected appeal.
8. In terms of above, this I.A. stands disposed of.
9. Registry shall register the connected appeal and list the same before this
Court as soon as practicable. The name of Mr. M. Talukdar, learned counsel for
the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 shall be reflected in the cause list.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
