Allowed

Md. Jafor Iqbal Hoque @ Jafar Iqbal Haque and Anr. v. the Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Anr.

Gauhati HC4 Mar 2022I.A.(Civil)/592/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court considered an application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal regarding a claim for compensation arising from a motor vehicle accident. Holding that reasons for delay were weak but that the case circumstances warranted a flexible approach, the Court condoned the delay.

What did the court decide?

The delay was condoned and the connected appeal was directed to be listed and registered for admission hearing.

Md. Jafor Iqbal Hoque @ Jafar Iqbal Haque and Anr. Vs… — Company and Corporate | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010034332021

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/592/2021

¶5

MD. JAFOR IQBAL HOQUE @ JAFAR IQBAL HAQUE AND ANR S/O- SAHIDUL HAQUE, R/O- BIDYAPUR WARD NO. 10, P.S. AND DIST.DHUBRI, ASSAM. (DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE NO. AS-17D-4715, ALTO).

¶6

2: MD. MOKTER ALI S/O- LATE MONSER ALI R/O- GARIKHANA ROAD P.O. BIDYAPARA WARD-9 P.S. AND DIST.- DHUBRI ASSAM. (OWNER OF THE VEHICLE NO. AS-17-D-4715 ALTO)

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND ANR BRANCH OFFICE DHUBRI D.K. ROAD, P.O. AND DIST.- DHUBRI, ASSAM. (INSURER OF VEHICLE NO. AS-17D-4715, ALTO).

¶9

2:SMT. RUNU DUTTA W/O- SRI SUREN CH. DUTTA R/O- KHATUWAL GAON P.O. PHULPANI CHIGA P.S. GAURISAGAR DIST.- SIVASAGAR ASSAM

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. R CHOUDHURY

¶11

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. S P SHARMA (R-1)

¶12

Page No.# 2/3

¶13

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA

¶14

ORDER

¶15

04.03.2022

¶16

Heard Ms. R. Choudhury, learned counsel representing the applicants as well as Ms. R.D. Mozumdar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶17

This is an application under Section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 praying for condonation of 207 days in preferring the appeal.

¶18

It has been submitted on behalf of the applicant that the engaged counsel did not inform him that the judgment was passed on 22.05.2019. According to the learned counsel, the recent pandemic also contributed to the delay.

¶19

The prayer for condonation of delay has been objected by the Insurance Company who filed an affidavit to that effect. It has been submitted on behalf of the Insurance Company that the delay has not been satisfactorily explained.

¶20

I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides.

¶21

It is true that the reasons for delay are weak. But it is a settled position of law that while considering a prayer for condonation of delay, the courts are not required to take a hypertechnical approach. The claimant filed the claim before the Tribunal for seeking compensation on account of death of her son. The Tribunal awarded compensation with a direction that the Insurance Company shall be liberty to withdraw the money from the owner of the connected vehicle. The present appellants/applicants are the owner and driver of the connected vehicle.

¶22

This Court is of the opinion that the appellants/ applicants deserve to be heard

¶23

Page No.# 3/3

¶24

in the appeal.

¶25

Under the aforesaid premised reasons, this court hereby holds that though the reasons shown for the delay are weak in nature but under the given circumstances of the case, those reasons may be accepted as sufficient grounds for condonation of delay.

¶26

Accordingly, the delay stands condoned. The connected appeal shall be listed and registered for admission hearing.

¶27

The IA stands disposed of.

¶28

JUDGE

¶29

Comparing Assistant

Md. Jafor Iqbal Hoque @ Jafar Iqbal Haque and Anr. v. the Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Jafor Iqbal Hoque @ Jafar Iqbal Haque and Anr. v. the Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Anr.

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

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

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

Kamakhya Saha Vs Uttam Kr. Saha and 2 Ors.

Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Palash Mazumdar and 3 Ors.

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Nibedita Bhattacharyya and 4 Ors.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt Hunti Gohain and 7 Ors.