Allowed

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

Gauhati HC14 Sept 2022I.A.(Civil)/681/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order grants an interlocutory application seeking condonation of a 561-day delay in filing a statutory appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. The court held the applicant's explanations regarding communication and investigation sufficient, finding no mala fides, and directed listing of the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The application for condonation of 561 days delay in filing the appeal is allowed; the appeal is to be registered and listed on 23.09.2022.

The National Insurance Company Limited Vs Dr. Dhiman… — Motor Accident Claims | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC010041642020

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/681/2020

¶5

THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED REGISTERED HEAD OFFICE AT 3, MIDDLETON STREET, CALCUTTA 700071, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGER, GAUHATI REGIONAL OFFICE, BHANGAGARH, GUWAHATI 781005

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

DR. DHIMAN JYOTI BORA AND 2 ORS S/O MR. A.J. BORA, R/O HOUSE NO. 6, RAJGARH, 4TH BYE LANE, P.O. LACHIT NAGAR, P.S. BHANGAGARH, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, PIN 781003.

¶8

2:MRS NEENA BORA (OWNER) W/O MR. A.J. BORA R/O HOUSE NO. 6 RAJGARH 4TH BYE LANE P.O. LACHIT NAGAR P.S. BHANGAGARH DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSAM PIN 781003.

¶9

3:MR. NILAKANTA PATOWARI S/O PRABHAT DAS R/O VILL. AND P.O. GOBARADOL P.S. TIHU DIST. NALBARI ASSAM PIN 781370

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. R D MOZUMDAR

¶11

Page No.# 2/5

¶12

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. S S S RAHMAN (R1)

¶13

Linked Case : MAC.App./2412/2020 (Filing Number)

¶14

THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

¶15

VERSUS

¶16

DR. DHIMAN JYOTI BORA AND 2 ORS

¶17

-----------Advocate for : Advocate for : appearing for DR. DHIMAN JYOTI BORA AND 2 ORS

¶18

Linked Case : I.A. (Civil)/2414/2020 (Filing Number)

¶19

THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

¶20

VERSUS

¶21

DR. DHIMAN JYOTI BORA AND 2 ORS

¶22

-----------Advocate for : Advocate for : appearing for DR. DHIMAN JYOTI BORA AND 2 ORS

¶23

Page No.# 3/5

¶24

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA

¶25

ORDER

¶26

Date : 14.09.2022

¶27

Heard Ms. R. D. Mozumdar, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. S. S. S. Rahman, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2.

¶28

Office Note dated 31.08.2022 reflects that as per the report of the Process Server, service on respondent No.3 is complete and the same was received by his daughter, namely, ‘Pallabi Patowari’.

¶29

This Interlocutory Application has been filed by the applicant/National Insurance Company Limited seeking condonation of delay of 561 days that had occurred in preferring the accompanying statutory appeal against the Judgment and Award dated 20.04.2018 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.3, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in MAC Case No. 943/2015.

¶30

According to the applicant vide Judgment and award dated 20.04.2018 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.3, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in MAC Case No. 943/2015 an amount of Rs.12,05,122/- (Rupees twelve lakhs five thousand one hundred twenty two) only was awarded as compensation to the claimants along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till its realization .

¶31

Page No.# 4/5

¶32

The learned counsel for the applicant has urged before this Court that the delay has occurred because of delay in the communication made by the counsel, who represented the applicant before the Tribunal and in transmitting the relevant documents and records. That apart the Insurance company had engaged an Insurance Investigator for verification of the claims for reimbursement of medical bills in respect of treatments undertaken at Kokilaben Dhirubhai Hospital, Mumbai. According to the applicant the investigation required some amount of time for the report to be submitted to the Insurance company and therefore, there was a delay in filing the accompanying appeal.

¶33

Learned counsel for the applicant has filed an objection opposing the delay. It is submitted that the delay that had occurred between the learned counsel representing the applicant before the Tribunal and the applicant company has not been explained at all. The respondent claimant has objected that the report of the Insurance Investigator cannot be taken on record as the same was conducted pursuant to the Judgment and Award of the Tribunal. It is contended that the said report was not produced before the Tribunal and the same was not proved.

¶34

Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and having perused the grounds urged for condonation of delay, this Court is of the view that considering the grounds urged in respect of the enquiry made in respect of the treatment

¶35

Page No.# 5/5

¶36

undertaken in the hospital at Mumbai and the expenses thereto, which were conducted pursuant to the Judgment and Award of the Tribunal, the same may require examination by the Court at the time of hearing of the appeal subject to the procedures prescribed by law.

¶37

Considering the fact that this is an application for condonation of the delay that has occurred, 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 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. The delay of 561 days in filing the accompanying appeal against the Judgment and award dated 20.04.2018 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.3, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in MAC Case No. 943/2015 is hereby condoned.

¶38

Interlocutory Application is accordingly allowed and disposed of.

¶39

Registry is directed to number the accompanying appeal and list it before the Court on 23.09.2022.

¶40

JUDGE

¶41

Comparing Assistant

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

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

Anjan Thapa Vs Md. Nazmi and 2 Ors.

Nandan Medhi Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.