Dismissed

Smt. Shanta Dey and Anr. v. Sri Jugal Kishor Mahanto and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC3 Mar 2022I.A.(Civil)/1220/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected an application under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking condonation of delay of 357 days in filing an appeal for enhancement of a motor accident compensation award, holding the grounds insufficient.

What did the court decide?

The prayer for condonation of delay is rejected and the present interlocutory application is disposed of.

Smt. Shanta Dey and Anr. Vs Sri Jugal Kishor… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010077662019

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/1220/2019

¶5

SMT. SHANTA DEY AND ANR W/O- LATE BABUL KUMAR DEY, PERMANENT R/O- BUNGALOW NO. 18/B, IOC (AOD), DIGBOI, DIST.TINSUKIA, ASSAM.

¶6

2: SRI SUBHRASEKHAR DEY S/O- LATE BABUL KUMAR DEY

¶7

PERMANENT R/O- BUNGALOW NO. 18/B IOC (AOD) DIGBOI DIST.- TINSUKIA ASSAM

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

SRI JUGAL KISHOR MAHANTO AND 3 ORS. S/O- SRI JIBA KRISHNA MAHANTO,

¶10

R/O- H/NO. D, USHA COURT, R. G. BARUA ROAD, GUWAHATI, KAMRUP, ASSAM. (OWNER OF THE VEHICLE NO. AS-06-F-7425 (TATA 207 D.I.), PRESENT R/O- M/S. JUGAL KISHOR MAHANTO, B.M. PLAT, HUKANPUKHURI, A.T. ROAD, P.S. MAKUM, DIST.- TINSUKIA, ASSAM.

¶11

2:SRI BULMON GOHAIN S/LO- PARMADHAR GOHAIN R/O- JYOTI NAGAR P.S. AND P.O.- MAKUM DIST.- TINSUKIA ASSAM. (DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE NO. AS-06-F-7425 (TATA 207 D.I.).

¶12

3:NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

¶13

DULIAJAN BRANCH P.O. AND P.S. DULIAJAN

¶14

Page No.# 2/3

¶15

DIST.- DIBRUGARH ASSAM. (INSURER OF VEHICLE NO. AS-06-F-7425 (TATA 207 D.I.).

¶16

4:THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

¶17

ISSUED BY DIGBOI BRANCH DIVISIONAL OFFICE THANA ROAD TINSUKIA TOWN P.O. P.S. AND DIST.- TINSUKIA ASSAM. (INSURER OF VEHICLE BEARING NO. AS-23-G-2739 (MARUTI SWIFT DZIRE LXI)

¶18

Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. I DAS

¶19

Advocate for the Respondent : MR SISHIR DUTTA

¶20

BEFORE

¶21

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA

¶22

ORDER

¶23

03.03.2022

¶24

Heard Ms. I. Das, learned counsel representing the applicant. Also heard Mr. J. P. More, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1; Mr. R. K. Bhatra, learned counsel for respondent no. 3 and Ms. M. Choudhury, learned counsel appears for the respondent no. 4.

¶25

This is an application under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 praying for condonation of delay of 357 days in filing the appeal for enhancement of the award.

¶26

The 57 years old husband of the applicant died in a motor accident. In MAC Case No. 99/2013, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.98,85,596/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from date of filing of the claim application.

¶27

The petitioner has stated that because of the demise of her husband she was overburdened with the responsibilities of her family. She was also required to look after her ailing parents. The petitioner further submits that during pendency of the claim case in the Tribunal her mother-inlaw expired. In the meantime, there was a change of counsels. According to the petitioner, those are the circumstances for which she could not prefer the appeal in time.

¶28

Page No.# 3/3

¶29

The respondent/Insurance Company filed an objection stating that the grounds shown by the petitioner do not constitute “sufficient ground” for condonation of delay.

¶30

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides.

¶31

The grounds shown by the petitioner is not at all satisfactory. If these grounds are accepted for condonation of delay, then every ground which an appellant might take must be accepted. The appellant must show sufficient ground. The said sufficient ground must be reasonable and be acceptable to everyone. It was pure negligence on the part of the petitioner/ appellant which led to the delay. Therefore, the delay cannot be condoned.

¶32

For the said reasons, the prayer for condonation of delay is rejected and the present interlocutory application is disposed of.

¶33

JUDGE

¶34

Comparing Assistant

Smt. Shanta Dey and Anr. v. Sri Jugal Kishor Mahanto and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Shanta Dey and Anr. v. Sri Jugal Kishor Mahanto and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

MD Jahur Ali Vs M/S Prerona Transport and Carrying Co. P Ltd. and 3 Ors.

Punakan @ Phukon Boro Vs Afiya Khatoon and 2 Ors.

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Kamana Bala Das and 4 Ors.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mrs. Rokia Begum and 7 Ors.

Kamakhya Saha Vs Uttam Kr. Saha and 2 Ors.

Smti. Kalyani Kalita Vs Lava Kumar Das