Allowed

Md. Giasuddin Ahmed and Anr, v. the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and 2 Ors.

Gauhati HC18 Aug 2022I.A.(Civil)/1909/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application for condonation of a 14-day delay in filing an appeal to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The court accepted financial hardships and illness as sufficient grounds, relying on the principles laid down in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy, and directed the Registry to register the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of 14-day delay in filing the MAC appeal; direction to the Registry to register the appeal and list it.

Md. Giasuddin Ahmed and Anr, Vs the New India… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010121562016

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/1909/2016

¶5

MD. GIASUDDIN AHMED and ANR, FATHER OF THE DECEASED

¶6

2: SMT. SUREZA AHMED MOTHER OF THE DECEASED VILL. GANESH NAGAR JYOTINAGAR P.S. CHANDMARI GHY-3 DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. and 2 ORS,

¶9

REPRESENTED BY REGIONAL MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE ABC, NEAR RAJIB BHABAN, GUWAHATI-5 THE INSURER OF THE VEHICLE P/NO. 530201/31/08/01/00001196 VALID UP TO 07/07/2009

¶10

2:DHARANIDHAR TALUKDAR C/O LT. BIRENDRA NATH SALOI H/NO. 12 BAHTAGHU OF PANJABARI WARD NO. 54

¶11

GUWAHATI-37 THE OWNER OF THE OFFENDING VEHICLE NO. AS-01/AC5307

¶12

3:KAMAL DAS

¶13

S/O SRI KRISHNA DAS VILL. KHATABARI DIST. NALBARI ASSAM THE DRIVER OF THE SAID OFFENDING VEHICLE D/L NO. F- 4016/NB/2004 VALID UPTO 04/08/2011 PIN 78135

¶14

Page No.# 2/4

¶15

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.J MOLLAH

¶16

Advocate for the Respondent : MSN KALITAR-1

¶17

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Date : 18-08-2022

¶20

Heard Mr. J. Mollah, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1.

¶21

The respondents No. 2 and 3 are arrayed as proforma respondents.

¶22

Office note dated 08.08.2022 reveals that service report on respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have not been received by the concerned section.

¶23

Mr. Mollah, learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that this application has been filed seeking condonation of delay of only 14 days that has occurred in filing the accompanying appeal. Insofar as the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, they are the driver and owner of the offending vehicle respectively.

¶24

Mr. Mollah, learned counsel draws the attention of the this Court to para- 4 of the Award dated 04.06.2016 passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 3, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in MAC Case No. 1558/2009 to contend that the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 therein who are arrayed as respondents No. 2 and 3 did not contest the case before the Tribunal as the case proceeded ex-parte against them. As such, it is submitted that for the purposes of condonation of delay service on

¶25

Page No.# 3/4

¶26

respondents No. 2 and 3 may be waived.

¶27

In view of the fact that the respondent No. 1 who had entered appearance does not object to the condonation of delay as prayed for. The matter is taken up for consideration of the prayers made.

¶28

The learned counsels for the parties have been heard and pleadings on records have been duly perused. The grounds urged have been carefully noted. It is averred in the application that because of injury sustained and subsequent death of the victim, the claimants suffered extreme financial hardships and had to incur huge financial debt for taking loans for the treatment of the victim who ultimately expired. Because of such financial hardships, there was a delay in acquiring relevant documents including the certified copy of the order. Subsequently, the applicant also fell ill and was unable to move out. Upon his recovery he immediately contacted the engaged counsel with a request to file the appeal. The appeal was thereafter prepared and filed on 16.09.2016. In the process, a delay of 14 days had occurred.

¶29

Upon due consideration of the grounds urged, this Court is of the view that the explanation furnished through the grounds urged in the I.A. can be considered to be sufficient for the delay that has occurred.

¶30

In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in N. Balakrishnan – Vs- M. Krishnamurthy reported in (1998) 7 SCC 123, this Court considers the grounds to be sufficient explanation and thereby condones the delay of 14 days that has occurred in filing the accompanying MAC appeal by the applicant.

¶31

I.A. is accordingly allowed and disposed of.

¶32

Page No.# 4/4

¶33

The Registry is directed to register the appeal and list it before the

¶34

Court.

¶35

JUDGE

¶36

Comparing Assistant

Md. Giasuddin Ahmed and Anr, v. the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Giasuddin Ahmed and Anr, v. the New India Assurance 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

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

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

M/S Basanti Seeds Centre Vs the Dgm, Bank of Baroda and Anr.

Necem Cements Limited and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 11 Ors.

Necem Cements Limited and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 9 Ors.