Allowed

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Paresh Kalita and 2 Ors.

Gauhati HC16 May 2019I.A.(Civil)/1288/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court allowed an application seeking condonation of a 47-day delay in filing a connected appeal. The court accepted the applicant's explanation regarding internal communications and legal opinion retrieval, noting the respondent had not denied liability.

What did the court decide?

The delay of 47 days in filing the connected appeal stands condoned, and the applicant is permitted to proceed with the appeal.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Paresh Kalita and 2 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2019) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010077502018

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : I.A.(Civil) 1288/2018

¶5

1:UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD

¶6

HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 24 WHITES ROAD, CHENNAI 600014 AND REGIONAL OFFICE AT ABC, BHANGAGARH, GUWAHATI. 781005, ASSAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:PARESH KALITA AND 2 ORS

¶9

S/O SRI MADAN KALITA, R/O VILL. NOWPARA (DEUCHAR), P.O. PANERI, P.S. BOKO, DIST. KAMRUP, ASSAM, PIN 781123

¶10

2:PABITRA THAKURIA S/O SHRI NABIN THAKURIA R/O VILL. DAKHALA BANIAPARA P.S. PALSHBARI DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM 781120 (OWNER OF THE VEHICLE BEARING NO. AS-01/DC-7135

¶11

3:SRI RAHESWAR MAZUMDAR S/O LATE KALA RAM MAZUMDAR R/O VILL. RAMPUR NEAR PNB BANK P.O. AND P.S. PALASHBARI DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM 781120(DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE BEARING NO. AS-01/DC-7135

¶12

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S DUTTA

¶13

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. A B ROY

¶14

Page No.# 2/3

¶15

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Date : 16-05-2019

¶18

Heard Ms. M. Choudhury, the learned counsel for the applicant who submits that this application is filed seeking condonation of 47 days delay in filing the connected appeal.

¶19

She submits that although notice was issued on 20.04.2018, only the respondent No. 1 has entered appearance by engaging his counsel.

¶20

She submits that as per office note dated 25.04.2019, A/D card has returned back from the respondent No. 2 but signed by another person. There is no response from the respondent No. 3.

¶21

Considering the fact that there is only 47 days delay in filing the appeal and that the applicant in the connected appeal has not totally denied its liability to pay the compensation, the application is taken up for disposal by presuming service upon the respondent Nos. 2 & 3.

¶22

Ms. M. Choudhury, the learned counsel submits that the main reason of delay in filing the appeal is due to the various communications that had to be made between the applicant and their counsel and also between the Branch Office and the Regional Office of the Insurance Company.

¶23

The applicant secured legal opinion from their counsel only on 26.02.2018 whereafter, the appeal could be filed only on 05.04.2018, after the opinion was duly vetted by the Head Office. In support of his submission, the learned counsel refers to paragraph No. 5 of the application.

¶24

Mr. A.B. Roy, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1/claimant submits that in so far as the delay is concerned, he has no objection and submits that the same may be condoned and the appeal may be heard on merit.

¶25

Considering the submissions made and upon perusal of the application, I am of the

¶26

Page No.# 3/3

¶27

considered view that the applicant is able to explain satisfactorily the delay in filing the connected appeal. Accordingly, the delay of 47 days in filing the connected appeal stands condoned.

¶28

I.A. stands disposed of as allowed.

¶29

JUDGE

¶30

Comparing Assistant

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Paresh Kalita and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Paresh Kalita and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dilip Borah Vs Padum Borah and Anr.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Anjana Jha and 6 Ors.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Gautam Das and 4 Ors.

M/S New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smti Purabi Das and 3 Ors.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Paresh Kalita and 2 Ors.

Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Sri Tuleswar Hazarika and 4 Ors.