Allowed

Anjan Thapa v. Md. Nazmi and 2 Ors.

Gauhati HC14 Sept 2022I.A.(Civil)/1248/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge bench of the Gauhati High Court disposed of an interlocutory application seeking condonation of delay. The Court allowed the request, finding the claimant's disability and pandemic-related constraints as sufficient explanation without mala fide, and directed listing of the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of delay in filing the accompanying MAC appeal; appeal listable after two weeks.

Anjan Thapa Vs Md. Nazmi and 2 Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010075672022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/1248/2022

¶5

ANJAN THAPA S/O KHIM BAHADUR THAPA,

¶6

RESIDENT OF DEZDA, PO TANGAVAELI, PS RUPA, DIST WEST KAMENG, ARUNACHAL PRADESH.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

MD. NAZMI AND 2 ORS.

¶9

C/O JOGENDRA GARAGE, PO AND PS BASISTHA, GUWAHATI, KAMRUPM ASSAM

¶10

2:KAMI TAMANG S/O M.B TAMANG

¶11

RESIDENT OF DEZDA PO TANGAVAELLI PS DEZDA RUPA DIST WEST KAMENG ARUNACHAL PRADESH

¶12

3:NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

¶13

BELTOLA BRANCH DIST KAMRUP M ASSA

¶14

Advocate for the Petitioner : A N HUSSAIN

¶15

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. R GOSWAMI (R-3)

¶16

Page No.# 2/4

¶17

Linked Case : MAC.App./4775/2022 (Filing Number)

¶18

ANJAN THAPA

¶19

VERSUS

¶20

MD. NAZMI AND 2 ORS. E

¶21

-----------Advocate for : A N HUSSAIN Advocate for : appearing for MD. NAZMI AND 2 ORS. E

¶22

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Date : 14.09.2022

¶25

Heard Mr. S. banik, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. M. Saikia, learned counsel for respondent No.3.

¶26

Vide order dated 29.04.2022, respondents No.1 and 2 have already been struck-off.

¶27

This Interlocutory Application has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 122 days that had occurred in preferring the accompanying appeal under Section 173 of M.V. Act, 1988 against the Judgment and Order dated 23.09.2019 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonitpur, Tezpur dismissing the MAC Case No. 135/2016 (I).

¶28

The learned counsel for the applicant submits that

¶29

Page No.# 3/4

¶30

because of the injuries sustained in the accident the claimant had sustained grievous multiple injuries on his person including amputation of his left leg, but inspite of all the injuries sustained, the Tribunal did not take into account the relevant issues and the evidences adduced and consequently dismissed the claim petition preferred by the applicant. 5. The applicant has urged the following grounds in support of her prayer for condonation of delay:-

¶31

“4. That the claimant is a poor person and following the amputation of his left leg, it was increasingly difficult for the claimant to maintain his livelihood. As such, it was not financially possible for the claimant to come to Guwahati for filing an appeal. However, the Counsel for the claimant in the Learned Tribunal opted to help the claimant and met the expenses for filing an appeal in the Hon’ble High Court. furthermore, during the period of Pandemic, it was not possible for the claimant to come to Guwahati to prefer the appeal. ”

¶32

The respondent No.3 i.e. the New India Assurance Company although represented by a counsel, has not filed any objection, opposing the prayer for condonation of delay and also does not object to the prayer for condonation of delay.

¶33

The learned counsel for the parties have been heard. Grounds urged and the pleadings have been duly perused.

¶34

Upon due consideration of the submissions as well as 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

¶35

Page No.# 4/4

¶36

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 122 days in filing the accompanying appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 23.09.2019 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonitpur, Tezpur in MAC Case No. 135/2016 (I) is hereby condoned. 9. Interlocutory Application is accordingly allowed and disposed of.

¶37

Registry is directed to number the accompanying appeal and list it before the Court after 2 (two) weeks.

¶38

JUDGE

¶39

Comparing Assistant

Anjan Thapa v. Md. Nazmi and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anjan Thapa v. Md. Nazmi and 2 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

Rakesh Kumar Vs M. S. Mani Vannan and 4 Ors.

Saurav Jyoti Baruah Vs Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. and 3 Ors.

The Union of India and 3 Ors. Vs Niranjan Kumar Deori

The National Insurance Company Limited Vs Dr. Dhiman Jyoti Bora and 2 Ors.

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Smt. Chuchitra Nath and 2 Ors.

Nandan Medhi Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.