Disposed

Smti Himadri Choudhury v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and 2 Ors.

Gauhati HC2 Apr 2019I.A.(Civil)/2047/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On an application for condonation of delay in filing a connected appeal, the High Court condoned the delay of 390 days, accepting the explanation of the applicant's ill health, and ordered the striking off of a formal respondent.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 390 days in filing the connected appeal was condoned; Respondent No. 2 was struck out from the array of respondents.

Smti Himadri Choudhury Vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and 2 Ors. — Insurance | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC010122382016

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : I.A.(Civil) 2047/2016

¶5

1:SMTI HIMADRI CHOUDHURY

¶6

D/O SHRI BHUPEN CHOUDHURY, R/O BARBANG, MOUZA UTTAR BAJALI, P.S. PATACHARKUCHI, DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN 781326

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. and 2 ORS,

¶9

REPRESENTED BY THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, BONGAIGAON DIVISION, BONGAIGAON, P.O. and DIST. BONGAIGAON.

¶10

2:PRAFULLA SARMAH S/O LATE GUNESWAR SARMAH OWNER OF VEHICLE NO. AS-17 A/4763 MARUTI VAN R/O BHOGPUR P.O. BAMAKHATA P.S. PATACHARKUCHI DIST. BARPETA ASSAM

¶11

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.M M DEKA

¶12

Advocate for the Respondent : MRSISHIR DUTTAR-1

¶13

Linked Case : /

¶14

1:SHRI HIMADRI CHOUDHURY

¶15

VERSUS

¶16

Page No.# 2/5

¶17

1:NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD and 2 ORS

¶18

2:MD. JAMAL UDDIN VUTTU S/O LT. LALU MIYA.

¶19

3:MD. RASHID ALI S/O LT. WASID ALI.

¶20

4:MD. KHALILUDDIN S/O LTE ABDUL JABBAR.

¶21

5:MD. BERAI MIYA S/O ABDUL JABBAR.

¶22

6:MUST. ANGURA BIBI W/O MD. KAMAL UDDIN.

¶23

7:MD. ALAHUDDIN CHOUDHURY S/O LATE MOKBUL ALI CHOUDHURY.

¶24

8:MD. AMIRUDDIN CHOUDHURY S/O LATE MOKBUL ALI CHOUDHURY LEGAL HEIRS OF LATE MOFUR ALI.

¶25

9:MD. NOORUDDIN

¶26

10:MD. ROISUDDIN BOTH ARE SONS OF LATE MOFUR ALI.

¶27

11:MD. ISLAM UDDIN S/O LT. MOFUR ALI.

¶28

12:MD. HILALUDDIN S/O LT. MOFUR ALI.

¶29

13:MUST. EKLASUN NESSA D/O LT. MOFUR ALI.

¶30

14:MUST. GULSANARA BEGUM D/O LATE MOFUR ALI.

¶31

15:MD. ABDUL WAHID PASHAI MIYA S/O LT. ASTOR ALI.

¶32

16:MD. SIRAJUDDIN

¶33

Page No.# 3/5

¶34

S/O LATE MOBARAK ALI.

¶35

17:MD. MOZAID ALI S/O LATE FORMUJ ALI

¶36

ON THE DEATH OF JALAJUDDIN LASKAR HIS LEGAL HEIRS ARE

¶37

18:ALTAF HUSSAIN LASKAR S/O LATE JALALUDDIN LASKAR

¶38

19:FAIJUL HOQUE LASKAR S/O LATE JALALUDDIN LASKAR.

¶39

20:SAIDUL HOQUE LASKAR S/O LATE JALALUDDIN LASKAR.

¶40

21:FATIMA BEGUM LASKAR D/O LATE JALALUDDIN LASKAR.

¶41

22:ROHINA BEGUM LASKAR D/O LATE JALALUDDIN LASKAR.

¶42

23:IMRANA BUGUM LASKAR D/O LATE JALALUDDIN LASKAR.

¶43

24:ASHIA BEGUM LASKAR W/O LATE JALALUDDIN LASKAR.

¶44

25:MD. JAHURUDDIN MAZARBHUIYA

¶45

S/O LT. HAJI MUUJAMIL ALI

¶46

ALL ARE THE RESIDENTS OF VILL. RANGPUR PT. VIII P.S. KATLICHERRA DIST. HAILAKANDI.

¶47

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.U C RABHA Advocate for the Respondent :

¶48

BEFORE

¶49

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO

¶50

ORDER

¶51

Date : 02-04-2019

¶52

Page No.# 4/5

¶53

Heard Mr. S.M. Sarma, the learned counsel for the applicant, who submits that the applicant by filing this application has sought for the condonation of 390 days delay in filing the connected appeal against the Judgment dated 20.03.2015, passed by the learned Member, MACT Barpeta in MAC Case No. 575/2005.

¶54

The learned counsel submits that since the liability has been fixed upon the respondent No. 1 to pay the compensation, the respondent No. 2 being only a formal party, his name may be struck of from the arrayed respondent in the present application.

¶55

The respondent No. 1 is represented by Ms. M. Choudhury, who submits that the name of the respondent No. 2 as prayed for by the learned counsel for the applicant may be deleted at the risk of the applicant. Considering the submissions made, the name of the respondent No. 2 be deleted from the arrayed respondent. As regards, the ground taken for condonation of delay by the applicant, the learned counsel, Mr. S.M. Sarma submits that delay was caused on account of the ill health of the applicant.

¶56

Drawing the attention of this Court to the Medical Certificate issued to9 the applicant on 07.07.2016, which is annexed as Annexure-2 to the application, the learned counsel submits that due to the physical condition of the applicant since 22.03.2015 upto till the date of assurance of the Medical Certificate, she was not in a position to approach and consult her lawyer for filing the appeal before the High Court.

¶57

The learned counsel further submits that the applicant has good grounds for filing the appeal and if the delay in filing the appeal is not condoned, the very purpose of filing the appeal will be frustrated. He therefore submits that the delay be condoned and Court may consider the appeal on merit.

¶58

Ms. M. Choudhury, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 submits that Court may consider the application and pass necessary orders as may be deemed fit.

¶59

Page No.# 5/5

¶60

I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned counsel for

¶61

the respondent No. 1 and I have also perused the application.

¶62

The explanation tendered in the application, in my considered opinion is hardly satisfactorily but at the same time considering the fact that the applicant seeks enhancement of the amount of compensation that was awarded to her by the learned Tribunal, I am of the view that interest of justice will be served for the delay of condoning the application.

¶63

In view of above, the delay of 390 days in filing the connected application is hereby condoned.

¶64

I.A. stands disposed of accordingly.

¶65

JUDGE

¶66

Comparing Assistant

Smti Himadri Choudhury v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smti Himadri Choudhury v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 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

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Paresh Paul and 2 Ors.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mst Tara Banu and 6 Ors.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs MD Ajizur Rahman @ Ajizul Hoque

Krishna Konwar Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Smti. Saleha Begum and 3 Ors.

The Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. .Ltd Vs Basiron Bibi and 5 Ors.