Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/6 vs Smt Jayanti Rajbangshi And 3 Ors on 22 October, 2025

Page No.# 1/6

GAHC010099662023

2025:GAU-AS:14012

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/1285/2023

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE and HEAD OFFICE AT 24 WHITES ROAD,
CHENNAI AND ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT G.S. ROAD, DISPUR, GUWAHATI.

VERSUS

SMT JAYANTI RAJBANGSHI and 3 ORS
W/O LATE PRADIP DAS,

2:LETOM DAS

S/O LATE PRADIP DAS

3:NILAKHYA DAS

D/O LATE PRADIP DAS
ALL ARE R/O VILL. GARIGAON
BAZPARA
C/O GAUHATI UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL CAMPUS NEAR MIRA DAS
QUARTER
P.S. JALUKBARI
DIST. KAMRUP
ASSAM

4:AKAN RAJBANGSHI

R/O RUKMINI NAGAR
HOUSING COLONY
P.S. DISPUR
GUWAHATI 781006
DIST. KAMRUP
Page No.# 2/6

ASSAM OWNER OF VEHICLE NO. AS-25/4568 SCOOTE

Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.M SAIKIA, MR.R GOSWAMI

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. S K GOSWAMI,

Linked Case : MACApp./158/2015

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE and HEAD OFFICE AT 24 WHITES ROAD
CHENNAI AND ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT G.S. ROAD
DISPUR
GUWAHATI.

VERSUS

SMT JAYANTI RAJBANGSHI and 3 ORS
W/O LATE PRADIP DAS

2:LETOM DAS

S/O LATE PRADIP DAS

3:NILAKHYA DAS

D/O LATE PRADIP DAS
ALL ARE R/O VILL. GARIGAON
BAZPARA
C/O GAUHATI UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL CAMPUS NEAR MIRA DAS QUARTER
P.S. JALUKBARI
DIST. KAMRUP
ASSAM
RESPONDENT NOS 2 and 3 BEING MINOR ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR
LEGAL GUARDIAN MOTHER I.E. RESPONDENT NO. 1

4:AKAN RAJBANGSHI

R/O RUKMINI NAGAR
HOUSING COLONY
P.S. DISPUR
GUWAHATI 781006
DIST. KAMRUP
Page No.# 3/6

ASSAM OWNER OF VEHICLE NO. AS-25/4568 SCOOTER
------------
Advocate for : MS.M SAIKIA
Advocate for : MR.K RAHMANR-1 appearing for SMT JAYANTI RAJBANGSHI and
3 ORS

BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI

ORDER

22.10.2025 Heard Mr. R Goswami, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. S K Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent/claimant Nos. 1 to 3.

This interlocutory application is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of 5600 days in filing the application for substitution.

It appears that during pendency of the connected appeal being MACApp. No. 158/2015, the respondent No. 4, Sri. Akan Rajbongshi expired on 28.08.2007 and his wife, Smti. Ila Das also expired on 08.10.2021 leaving behind the surviving legal heirs, namely, (i) Sri Barnam Jyoti Rajkashyap, (ii) Smti. Saswati Rajkashyap and (iii) Smti Anushree Rajkashyap.

Accordingly, the legal heirs filed the connected substitution petition being I.A.(Civil) No. 1290/2023 with a delay of 5600 days.

The grounds of delay as stated in the instant interlocutory application read as under -

"3. That your humble appellant begs to stated that the substitution petition could not be filed in time as there was no information in respect of death of Respondent No. 4 which was discovered only when the matter was listed for orders on 02.03.2016 when it came to light from office note dated 01.02.2016 that un-served notice was received back with process server's report as "addressee has expired". Accordingly, the Appellant prayed for some time to file substitution petition on behalf of Respondent No. 4 and prayer was granted. On 06.04.2016 and 02.05.2018 when the matter was again listed for orders the Page No.# 4/6

appellant failed to file substitution petition because he was unable to find the names of the legal heirs of the Respondent No. 4 and so he prayed for some more time and his prayer was allowed and the matter was fixed for orders on 04.02.2020. On 04.02.2020 when the matter was listed for orders the Appellant had no other option but to pray for taking steps upon the legal heirs of Respondent No. 4 through substituted service and accordingly prayer was allowed fixing the date of appearance as 25.03.2020 as he could not collect any information regarding the legal heirs of Respondent No. 4 despite of publication of legal notice in the news paper. Therefore on 23.08.2022 when the matter was listed for orders the Appellant prayed for some more time to find the names of legal heirs of Respondent No. 4. Accordingly, prayer was allowed. The Appellant discussed the matter with the Learned Counsel who appeared on behalf of Respondent No. 1 claimant and on 14.03.2023 the Learned Counsel of the Respondent No. 1 managed to provided the Appellant the names of the legal heirs/representatives of Respondent No. 4 for substitution and subsequent impleadment for proper adjudication of the instant appeal. It has been now revealed that the Respondent No. 1 had died on 28.08.2007 almost 7 (seven) years before the judgment was delivered on 23.03.2015. But since the fact was not known when the appeal was filed on 29.06.2015 and the judgment was passed showing the name of the owner of the vehicle as Respondent No. 4 the memo of appeal has also been filed showing the owner of the vehicle as Respondent No. 4. Thereafter lately it has been revealed that the wife of the Respondent (Smt. Ila Das) also died during the pendency of the appeal on 08.10.2021. Although the substitution ought to have been done within 27.11.2007 the same could not be done because the Applicant was provided with the name of the legal heirs/representatives of Respondent No. 4 only on 14.03.2023.

The names of the surviving legal heirs of the Respondent No. 4 after the death of his wife Ila Das are the following -

(i) Sri Barnam Jyoti Rajkashyap

(ii) Smti. Saswati Rajkashyap Page No.# 5/6

(iii) Smti Anushree Rajkashyap

4. That the appellant begs to state that the delay of 5600 (five thousand sis hundred) days from the date of death of the respondent No. 4 but 50 (fifty) days only from the date of receipt of the names of the legal heirs in filing the substitution petition before this Hon'ble Court has been caused due to the reasons as stated hereinabove.

5. That there are no laches nor any negligence on the part of the applicants in not filing the substitution petition in time but the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause, due to the unavoidable circumstances as stated above, in filing the petition for substitution in time.

6. That the present appeal has been filed on the ground that the Judgment and Award passed by the Learned Additional District Judge No. 3, Kamrup (M) is against the settled position of the law that if a person borrows a vehicle from the owner of the vehicle he steps into the shoes of the owner of the vehicle and since the owner is not entitled to any compensation under the policy of insurance the same applies to the person who steps into his shoes. Under Section 147 of the M.V. Act a statutory policy of insurance is required o cover only the legal liability incurred by the owner and the driver towards any person other than the owner and the driver of the said insured vehicle. In the present case the husband of the Respondent No. 1 was driving the vehicle when the accident occurred. The Learned Judge ought not to have considered the income as Rs. 50,400.00 per anum because as Per Section 163A there is a ceiling of Rs. 40,000.00 per year.

Similarly there is no provision u/s 163A for adding 50% towards future prospect to the income of the deceased, medical expenditure of Rs. 92,480.00, Rs. 1,00,000.00 each for loss of consortium to wife and loss of love care & guidance of minor children. And such as the said Judgment and award passed by the Learned Judge being against the statutory provisions of law is not tenable in law. Therefore if this delay which is due to sufficient case is not condoned, your humble applicants will suffer irreparable loss and injury. "

Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the materials available on Page No.# 6/6

record.

The grounds in support of the prayer made in the instant interlocutory application, as extracted hereinabove, are sufficient and bona fide for allowing the instant interlocutory application for condonation of delay of 5600 days in filing the application for substitution

Accordingly, the instant interlocutory application, stands allowed and disposed of.