Allowed

Sri Joyram Das and Anr. v. Sri Nabajyoti Nath and Anr.

Gauhati HC17 Aug 2022I.A./713/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court considered an application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal judgment. The court accepted the applicant's illness and distance from the court as sufficient explanation and allowed the application, directing the appeal's registration.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of delay of 278 days in filing the accompanying appeal; registry directed to register the appeal and list it.

Sri Joyram Das and Anr. Vs Sri Nabajyoti Nath and Anr. — Motor Accident Claims | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010009312016

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : I.A./713/2016

¶5

SRI JOYRAM DAS and ANR. SON OF LATE DULIRAM DAS.

¶6

2: SMT. PUHITA DAS

¶7

WIFE OF SRI JOYRAM DAS. BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF VILL. MANIPUR CHEPAPARA P.O. MANIPUR P.S. MORIGAON DIST. MORIGAON ASSAM

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

SRI NABAJYOTI NATH and ANR.

¶10

SON OF SRI KRISNA KT. NATH, VILL. BARDUBATOP, BHURAGAON, P.O. BHURAGAON, P.S. LAHARIGHAT, DIST. MORIGAON, ASSAM.

¶11

2:BRANCH MANAGER RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. G.S. ROAD NEAR RAJIB BHAVAN GUWAHATI-5

¶12

Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.D KALITA

¶13

Advocate for the Respondent :

¶14

Page No.# 2/4

¶15

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Date : 17.08.2022

¶18

Heard Mr. M. Talukdar, learned counsel for the applicant.

¶19

2. Office note dated 10.08.2022 reflects that service on respondent No. 2 has been duly completed.

¶20

3. Office note dated 01.12.2018 reflects that the respondent No. 1 is represented by a counsel who has entered appearance by filing vakalatnama.

¶21

4. This Interlocutory Application has been filed by the claimants seeking condonation of delay of 278 days that has occurred in filing the accompanying appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 15.02.2014 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Morigaon, Assam in MAC Case No. 78/2009. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 5,12,620/- (Rupees Five Lakh Twelve Thousands Six Hundred Twenty only). The amount was directed to be paid by the Insurance Company namely, respondent No. 2 alongwith a simple interest @ 6% per annum w.e.f. the date of filing the claim petition. In the event of failure of payment as directed, an additional interest @ 9% was directed to be paid from the date of passing the order.

¶22

5. Although the respondents No. 1 and 2 have been duly served their notices, none represents them when the matter is called up. Neither any objections have been filed objecting to the prayer for condonation of delay.

¶23

6. In the pleadings, the applicant has urged the following grounds in support of it’s prayer for condonation of delay:-

¶24

“The petitioners states that they are residing in the remote village of

¶25

Page No.# 3/4

¶26

Manipur, Chepapara in the district of Morigaon, Assam. The son of the petitioners died due to motor vehicular accident leaving behind petitioners, one minor sister and one minor brother. The petitioner No. 1 is the only adult male member in the family and hence all the responsibilities for filing and taking necessary steps in the claim case as well as the appeal before this Hon’ble Court was taken by the petitioner No. 1. The petitioner No. 1 has been suffering from illness since long and as such, appeal against the Judgment and Order passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Morigaon could be not filed at any earlier point of time.

¶27

The petitioners states that the Judgment & Award was passed on 15.02.2014. The petitioner No. 1 has been suffering from serious illness (Chronic U.T.I with Haematuria) from the month of February, 2014 and under the treatment of doctor since 30.04.2014 till 16.02.2015 and till date he has not been fully cured. Hence, after going through the Judgment and Order passed by the learned Tribunal, although the local counsel for the petitioners advised them on several occasions to file appeal against the said judgment and order and further, advised them to meet and consult the present counsel at Guwahati, but they failed.

¶28

The petitioners could somehow managed to come to Guwahati only on 28.02.2015 and met their counsel at Guwahati on that very day, and handed over all the necessary documents to the said counsel for filing appeal. Thereafter, the counsel for the petitioners at Guwahati prepared Memorandum of Appeal and the same has been filed on 02.03.2015.

¶29

The Judgment & Order was passed on 15.02.2014. The petitioners applied for certified copy of the same on 17.01.2015 and the date fixed for notifying requisite stamps etc. on 17.01.2015 and it was delivered on 19.01.2015, the certified copy was made ready for delivery on 30.01.2015 and it was obtained on 30.01.2015. The appeal ought to have been filed on or before 28.05.2014 but the same has been filed on 02.03.2015. Hence, there is a delay of 278 days in filing appeal.”

¶30

7. The learned counsel for the claimant/applicant has been heard. Pleadings

¶31

Page No.# 4/4

¶32

on records are perused. Upon perusal of the same, it is seen that the explanation furnished by the applicant can be considered to be sufficient explanation for the delay that has occurred in filing the accompanying appeal.

¶33

8. In view of the above, this Court considers the grounds urged to be sufficient explanation for the delay that had occurred and accordingly, the delay of 278 days that has occurred in filing the accompanying appeal is hereby condoned.

¶34

9. The I.A. is allowed and disposed of.

¶35

10. Registry is directed to register the appeal and list it before the Court.

¶36

JUDGE

¶37

Comparing Assistant

Sri Joyram Das and Anr. v. Sri Nabajyoti Nath and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Joyram Das and Anr. v. Sri Nabajyoti Nath and Anr.

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

Rishab Phukan Vs Mr. Putula Begum and 7 Ors.

Center for Environment Protection (Cep) Vs the State of Mizoram and Ors.

Katinath Narzary Vs Madhu Agarwala and Anr.

Pankaj Kumar Deka Vs the Reserve Bank of India and Anr.

Taj Uddin Ahmed Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Muslim Ali Vs the Bank of Baroda and Anr.