Allowed

Smti Bijaya Sahu, v. the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC5 Sept 2022I.A.(Civil)/1073/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court considered an application for condonation of 98 days' delay in filing an appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. The court held the applicant's reasons regarding disability and financial hardship as sufficient and had no mala fides.

What did the court decide?

The interlocutory application for condonation of delay was allowed.

Smti Bijaya Sahu, Vs the United India Insurance Co… — Company and Corporate | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/6

¶2

GAHC010018412017

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/1073/2017

¶5

SMTI BIJAYA SAHU,

¶6

W/O SRI PUNAM CHAND SAHU, MILANPUR, DERGAON, P.O. and P.S. DERGAON, DIST. GOLAGHAT, ASSAM.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. and 4 ORS, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 24 WHITES ROADS, CHENNAI AND ITS REGIONAL OFFICE KNOWN AS GUWAHATI REGIONAL OFFICE, BHANGAGRH, OPPOSITE HUB SHOPPING MALL, GUWAHATI-781005, KAMRUP M, ASSAM.

¶9

2:KISHORE KUMAR AGARWALLA

¶10

S/O M.L. AGARWALLA A.T. ROAD HAIBOR GAON DIST. NAGAON ASSAM.

¶11

3:PRADEEP DAS

¶12

S/O LT. S. DAS PANIGAON NOWGAON P.O.NOWGAON

DIST. NOWGAON ASSAM

4:GANESH SAHU

Page No.# 2/6

NEGHERITING KALYAN NAGAR P.O. NEGHERITING P.S. DERGAON DIST. GOLAGHAT ASSAM.

¶17

5:THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

¶18

REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER ULUBARI GUWAHATI-7 DIST. KAMRUP M ASSA

¶19

Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.S KHANIKAR

¶20

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. R C PAUL

¶21

Linked Case : MAC.App./283700/2016 (Filing Number)

¶22

SMTI BIJAYA SAHU

¶23

2: SMTI BABLI DEY D/O SRI JANIMOY DEY BOTH ARE R/O LALGANESH PRAGATI NAGAR PATH P.S. FATASIL AMBARI IN THE DIST. OF KAMRUP ASSAM. VERSUS

¶24

THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD and 4 ORS

¶25

-----------Advocate for : MS.P BARUAH Advocate for : appearing for THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD and 4 ORS

¶26

Page No.# 3/6

¶27

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA

¶28

ORDER

¶29

Date : 05.09.2022

¶30

Heard Ms. P. Baruah, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. R. C. Paul, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and Mr. G. S. Boro, learned counsel for respondent No.5.

¶31

As per Office Note dated 16.08.2022, Notices on respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 could not be served as because of insufficient address.

¶32

This application has been filed by the claimant being aggrieved by the Judgment and Award dated 14.03.2016 passed by the learned Member, Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Golaghat in MAC Case No. 08/2010 whereby the claim petition of the applicant was allowed and an amount of Rs.44,877/- (Rupees forty four thousand eight hundred seventy seven) only was directed to be paid by the Opposite Party No.3 namely, the respondent No.1 herein i.e. United Insurance Company. According to the claimant the awarded amount was grossly inadequate and therefore, being aggrieved the present appeal has been filed. In the process of filing the statutory appeal, 98 days have condoned and therefore present application has been filed.

¶33

The Tribunal vide Judgment and Award dated 14.03.2016 directed the compensation of an amount of Rs. 44,877/- (Rupees forty four thousand eight hundred seventy

¶34

Page No.# 4/6

¶35

seven) only to be paid by the insurance company only. No directions have been issued by the Tribunal against the other Opposite Parties/respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 herein.

¶36

Considering the fact that this is an appeal filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation, awarded by Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Golaghat in MAC Case No. 08/2010, which was directed to be paid by the United India Insurance Company i.e. O.P./ respondent No.1, herein, this Court is of the view that no prejudiced will be caused to respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 as this Court proceeds to hear the prayer for condonation of delay without awaiting for return of service of Notice on the said respondents No. 2, 3 and 4, as the Tribunal did not pass any directions against the said respondents. The said respondents will be given adequate opportunity of being heard at the time of hearing the appeal.

¶37

The learned counsels for the parties have been heard and the pleadings on record have been perused. The ground urged in the application for condonation of delay is as under:-

¶38

“5. That after the accident the applicant became permanently disabled person and lost his earning capacity at 100%for ever. At the time of accident, the applicant was 40 years old and was doing the job of weaving. Being aggrieved by the above inadequate Award, the applicant/claimant decided to file an appeal before the Hon'ble Court praying for enhancement of the same. But the

¶39

Page No.# 5/6

¶40

applicant due to financial hardships and being physically handicapped could not come to Guwahati to entrust the case to her advocate. With lot of difficulties she arranged some money and come to Guwahati for the purpose of filing this appeal before this Hon'ble Court in the second week of September, 2016 and the engaged counsel prepared the Appeal and filed on 27.09.16. Due to the above reasons the delay of 98 days has occurred in filing this appeal before this Hon’ble Court. ”

¶41

Upon hearing the learned counsels appearing for the parties and upon consideration of the grounds urged, this Court is of the view that the grounds urged can be considered to be sufficient explanation of the delay that has occurred in filing the accompanying appeal. The explanation put forth for the delay that has occurred does not reveal any mala fides nor can it be seen as a dilatory strategy. On the grounds urged in the I.A., this Court finds that the delay that had occurred in filing the accompanying appeal can be condoned. Relying upon the principle of law laid down in N. Balakrishnan –Vs- M. Krishnamurthy reported in (1998) 7 SCC 123, the delay of 98 days in filing the accompanying appeal against the Judgment and Award dated 14.03.2016 passed by the MACT, Golaghat in MAC Case No. 08/2010 is hereby condoned.

¶42

Interlocutory Application is accordingly allowed and disposed of.

¶43

Registry is directed to number the accompanying appeal

¶44

Page No.# 6/6

¶45

and list it before the Court after 2 (two) weeks. Registry is also directed to reflect the names of all the counsels.

¶46

JUDGE

¶47

Comparing Assistant

Smti Bijaya Sahu, v. the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smti Bijaya Sahu, v. the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Atowar Rahman @ Atowar Hussain and 10 Ors. Vs Minakhsi Sundaram and 63 Ors.

Satnam Singh Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Xxx Xxx Vs the State of Arunachal Pradesh and 3 Ors.

Xxx Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Luthfa Begum Laskar Vs the State of Assam and Ors.

Xxx Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.