Tripura High Court
Sri Dulal Saha vs Sri Rajib Das And Another on 3 November, 2025
Author: T. Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
IA No.1 of 2025 in MAC App.68 of 2025
Sri Dulal Saha
........Applicant(s)
Vs.
Sri Rajib Das and another
........ Respondent(s)
For Applicant(s) : Mr. Biplab Debnath, Advocate
Mr. Anup Baidya, Advocate
Ms. M. Debbarma, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Debalay Bhattacharya, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Partha Sarathi Roy, Advocate
Mr. Samar Das, Advocate
Ms. Rashmi Bhattacharjee, Advocate
Mr. Bapi Kar, Advocate
HON'BLE JUSTICE DR. T. AMARNATH GOUD
ORDER
03.11.2025
[1] Heard Mr. Biplab Debnath, learned counsel appearing for the applicant.
[2] This application has been filed under proviso to Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condoning
the delay of 2056 (two thousand fifty six) days in preferring the Appeal before this
Court against the impugned judgment and award dated 15.07.2019 passed by the
learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tribunal no.3, West Tripura,
Agartala in case No. T.S. (MAC) 89 of 2015.
[3] The reason behind the delay in preferring the appeal has been explained
in the present application mainly in the following paragraphs, which are quoted as
follows:
"....2) That, the impugned Judgment & Award was passed ex parte on 15.07.2019.
Prior to passing of the judgment and award, notices were served upon the applicant,
but the Process Server failed to serve notice upon the applicant. Steps were taken
twice by the Process Server to serve notice upon the appellant. The report No. 1255
dated 05.05.2015 and report No. 2947 dated 24.08.2016 submitted by the Process
Server before the learned Tribunal clearly disclose that when the Process Server
went to serve the notices upon the appellant-OP, he searched for the residence of
the appellant-OP as per address given in the notice, but, on query the local people
residing therein clearly stated that person named, Dulal Saha, S/o lt Lal Mohan
Saha ie the applicant herein, does not reside in the said locality or the address given
in the notice since Shibnagar is a vast area. Since the applicant failed to appear
before the learned court, the Tribunal proceeded to hear the matter ex parte as per
order dated 18-09-2017 on submission of postal receipt of the registered post
without any confirmation slip of delivery report and thereby passed the impugned
judgment and award. Subsequently, thereafter, appellant-OP for the first time came
to know about the impugned judgment and award on receipt of Notice of Demand
dated 30.03.2025 issued by SDM. Sadar, in relation to Civil Misc(MAC) 20 of
2020 arising out of T.S. (MAC) 89 of 2015, and immediately after receipt of the
Notice of Demand, he has appeared before the SDM. Sadar on 03.04.2025 from
where he was directed to appear before the Executing Court i.e. Additional District
Judge, Court No.4, West Tripura, Agartala and on 29.04.2025 he appeared before
the learned Executing Court from where he came to learn about the ex parte
judgment and award. Without wasting any time, the applicant contacted his
engaged counsel and on his instruction, the applicant applied for obtaining certified
copy of the claim case on 08.04.2025 and he received the same on 28.04.2025.
When the applicant met with his engaged counsel on 06.05.2025 due his illness, his
engaged counsel could not find the certified copy of the impugned judgment and
award. Thereafter, again on 08.05.2025, the applicant applied for obtaining
certified copy of the impugned judgment and award and the same was received on
22.05.2025. Thereafter, the applicant contacted with his engaged counsel but, since
his engaged counsel was busy with his pre-occupied work, he instructed the
applicant to come to his chamber on 30.05.2025. Accordingly, the applicant on the
said date visited the chamber of his engaged counsel and handed over the file to
him and the engaged counsel thereafter has prepared the memo of appeal along
with the instant application on 01.06.2025 but, could not file the same immediately
after preparation of the same since this Hon'ble Court was on vacation, the said
delay has been caused.
(Copy of the order dated 18-09-2017 is enclosed herewith and marked as
Annexure-1)
3) That, it is submitted that the Process Server was not diligent in performing his
duty and the report No. 1255 dated 05.05.2015 and report No. 2947 dated
24.08.2016 submitted by the Process Server before the learned Tribunal are
presumed to be false and fabricated for the reason that the notice dated 20.03.2025
issued by the SDM. Sadar upon the appellant-OP on the same address has been
duly served. .................."
[4] Heard the submissions made at the Bar. Perused the record.
[5] It is observed by this Court that the reason for long delay of 2056 days
in filing the appeal, as explained in the instant application is not self-explanatory and
the same is not satisfactory to this Court. It is reflected the impugned award dated
15.07.2019 passed by the learned tribunal in T.S.(MAC) 89 of 2015 that the O.P.
No.1, owner of the vehicle i.e. the applicant herein did not turn up, nor contested the
case by filing written statement though notice was served upon him duly and the
case was proceeded ex parte against the OP No.1 as per order dated 18.09.2017. The
applicant suddenly woke up from a slumber and decided to prefer an appeal after
2056 days' inordinate delay. The said action of the applicant should not be
entertained.
[6] In view of the above, this Court feels that the grounds which the learned
counsel for the applicant has placed, are not sufficient enough to allow the present
application for condoning the inordinate long delay of 2056 days. Hence the same is
dismissed.
[7] Accordingly, this interlocutory application stands dismissed and the
same is disposed of. Resultantly, the connected appeal i.e. MAC App.68 of 2025
shall also stand dismissed.
Dr. T. Amarnath Goud, J.
Sabyasachi. G.
SABYASACHI GHOSH GHOSH
Date: 2025.11.07 16:45:47 +05'30'
