Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 5041 Gua
Judgement Date : 27 May, 2025
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010198612024
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/3081/2024
THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 3 MIDDLETON STREET, KOLKATA-
700071 AND REGIONAL OFFICE AT G.S. ROAD, BHANGAGARH,
GUWAHATI-5, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, REGIONAL
OFFICE, GUWAHATI.
VERSUS
MADHUMITA ACHARJEE AND 3 ORS
D/O. SRI. BABUL ACHARJEE
2:SRI. BABUL ACHARJEE
S/O. LATE SUMANTA ACHARJEE
BOTH ARE RESIDENT OF NALIAPOOL
DURGABARI
P/O.
P/S AND DIST.- DIBRUGARH
ASSAM-786125.
3:SRI LAKHI KANTA DUTTA
C/O. SRI PABITRA DUTTA
R/O.- LAHOWA PATRA GAON
LAHOWAL
P/O. AND P/S. LAHOWAL
DIST.- DIBRUGARH
ASSAM.
4:MD. ATIQUR RAHMAN @ SAFIQ
S/O. MD. ABDUL RAHMAN
BLOCK NO. 5
KADAMONI RAILWAY COLONY. DIBRUGARH EAST
P/O.
Page No.# 2/4
P/S. AND DIBRUGARH
ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P J BARMAN, MS R TADO
Advocate for the Respondent : DR. MANISH DAS (R-1,2), B J BAROOAH (R-1,2)
Linked Case :
THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
VERSUS
MADHUMITA ACHARJEE AND 3 ORS H
------------
Advocate for : MR. P J BARMAN
Advocate for : appearing for MADHUMITA ACHARJEE AND 3 ORS H
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI
ORDER
Date : 27.05.2025
Heard Mr. P.J. Barman, learned counsel for the applicant.
None appears for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 though their names have been shown in the cause list.
The present application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay of 142 days in preferring the connected Page No.# 3/4
appeal against the judgment and order dated 30.01.2024 passed by the learned Member, MACT, Dibrugarh in MAC Case No. 19/2020.
As per office note dated 21.05.2025, notice has been duly served to the respondent No. 3 however, he is not present today. It is also reflected in the office note dated 21.05.2025 that un-served notice of respondent No. 4 has arrived with postal remark "left. Return to sender."
Mr. Barman, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the delay occurred in filing the connected appeal is not intentional. He further submits that detailed ground of delay has been explained in the petition.
It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that respondent No. 4 is not required to be heard in the proceeding of this case as he is the driver of the offending vehicle. Therefore, his name should be struck off from the array of the respondents.
I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant.
The delay has been satisfactorily explained by the applicant and the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 did not raise any objection against the prayer of the applicant.
Considering all, the delay of 142 days is condoned and the names of the respondent No. 4 is struck off from array of the respondents in cause title of the appeal at the risk of the applicant.
The Registry is directed to do the needful and shall register the connected Page No.# 4/4
appeal and list it in admission column.
With the above observation, I/A stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!