Allowed

Smti Maya Roy @ Maya Rai v. M/S S.P. and Co. Ltd. and 2 Ors.

Gauhati HC1 Aug 2022I.A.(Civil)/1427/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court disposed of an Interlocutory Application seeking condonation of a delay of 83 days in filing an appeal against a MAC Tribunal award. The court also addressed a prayer to strike off the driver as a party respondent.

What did the court decide?

The delay of 83 days is condoned and the Interlocutory Application is allowed and disposed of. Respondent No. 3's name is struck off from proceedings.

Smti Maya Roy @ Maya Rai Vs M/S S.P. and Co. Ltd. and 2 Ors. — Insurance | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010025502016

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/1427/2016

¶5

SMTI MAYA ROY @ MAYA RAI W/O LATE KARTICK ROY @ KARTICK RAI, R/O VILL. KALPANAGAR, P.S. NAHARKATIA, DIST. DIBRUGARH, ASSAM.

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

M/S S.P. and CO. LTD. and 2 ORS, A.T. ROAD, GOLAI NO. 1, DIGBOI, P.O. DIGBOI, DIST. TINSUKIA, ASSAM, PIN 786171

¶8

2:M/S NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.

¶9

REGIONAL OFFICE GUWAHATI-05 DIST. KAMRUP M ASSAM.

¶10

3:MONTU GOGOI S/O K. GOGOI R/O VILL. NO. 2 BARPATHAR CHARBANDHI BANUNPUKHARI DIST. DIBRUGARH ASSAM

¶11

Advocate for the Petitioner : MRD MONDAL

¶12

Advocate for the Respondent :

¶13

Page No.# 2/3

¶14

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Date : 01-08-2022

¶17

It is submitted by Mr. D. Mondal, learned counsel for the applicant that this Interlocutory Application has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 83 days which had occurred in filing the accompanying appeal. The appeal was preferred by the claimant against the Judgment and Award dated 23.12.2015 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 3, Kamrup, Guwahati in MAC Case No. 182/2014.

¶18

Mr. A. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.

¶19

The learned counsel for the applicant submits that Notice on respondent No. 1 has already been served, which is also evident from the office note dated 23.03.2022.

¶20

The learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the respondent No. 3 who is the driver of the offending vehicle was arrayed as a party respondent. However, on instructions, he submits that his name may be struck off as a party respondent. Such prayer is not objected to by Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.

¶21

The prayer of the learned counsel for the applicant has been considered and the same is allowed. The name of respondent No. 3 is struck off from the proceedings as a party respondent.

¶22

The learned counsels for the parties have been heard and pleadings on records have been perused. Upon consideration of the grounds urged in the appeal, this Court is of the view that the delay of 83 days can be condoned as the grounds urged in the petition are found to be justified.

¶23

Page No.# 3/3

¶24

Accordingly, the delay of 83 days is condoned. The I.A. condoning the delay of 83 days is allowed and disposed of.

¶25

Registry is directed to number the connected MAC Appeal and list it before the Court within 2(two) weeks.

¶26

JUDGE

¶27

Comparing Assistant

Smti Maya Roy @ Maya Rai v. M/S S.P. and Co. Ltd. and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smti Maya Roy @ Maya Rai v. M/S S.P. and 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

North East Diocesan Social Service Society and 2 Ors. Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors.

North East Diocesan Social Service Society and 2 Ors. Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Vinod Bijarnia Vs Narcotics Control Bureau

Smti. Rama Das@ Rama Dey Vs Shri Sabyasachi Das

Asomi Industries Private Ltd. and Anr. Vs Assam Tea Employees Provident Fund Organization and 5 Ors.

Ramprasad Bhumij Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.