Allowed

Aanachar Ali @ Ansar Ali @ Anchar Ali and 4 Ors. v. Atikur Rahman and Anr.

Gauhati HC6 Sept 2022I.A.(Civil)/770/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court allowed an interim application seeking condonation of delay for filing a Motor Accidents Claims appeal. The court held that the appellant's illness and financial inability to access counsel provided sufficient explanation for the 181-day delay, relying on Supreme Court precedent. The appeal was listed for hearing after two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of delay of 181 days in filing the appeal; registry directed to list the accompanying appeal after two weeks.

Aanachar Ali @ Ansar Ali @ Anchar Ali and 4 Ors. Vs… — Motor Accident Claims | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/7

¶2

GAHC010048882020

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/770/2020

¶5

AANACHAR ALI @ ANSAR ALI @ ANCHAR ALI AND 4 ORS S/O LATE AYOB ALI, PRESENTLY RESIDENTS OF VILL, P.O. AND P.S. PANCHGRAM, DIST. HAILAKANDI, ASSAM. PERMANENT ADDRESS VILL LAMARKHOLA, P.O. SHIBERCHAK, P.S. BADARPUR, DIST. KARIMGANJ, ASSAM, PIN 788710

¶6

2: FARIDA BEGOM D/O AANACHAR ALI PRESENTLY RESIDENTS OF VILL P.O. AND P.S. PANCHGRAM DIST. HAILAKANDI ASSAM. PERMANENT ADDRESS VILL LAMARKHOLA P.O. SHIBERCHAK P.S. BADARPUR DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN 788710.

¶7

3: FATIMA BEGAM D/O AANACHAR ALI PRESENTLY RESIDENTS OF VILL P.O. AND P.S. PANCHGRAM DIST. HAILAKANDI ASSAM. PERMANENT ADDRESS VILL LAMARKHOLA P.O. SHIBERCHAK P.S. BADARPUR DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN 788710 4: LUTFA BEGAM D/O AANACHAR ALI PRESENTLY RESIDENTS OF VILL P.O. AND P.S. PANCHGRAM

¶8

Page No.# 2/7

¶9

DIST. HAILAKANDI ASSAM. PERMANENT ADDRESS VILL LAMARKHOLA P.O. SHIBERCHAK P.S. BADARPUR DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN 788710. REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER I.E. APPELLANT NO.1 5: MD. EYASIN ALI S/O AANACHAR ALI PRESENTLY RESIDENTS OF VILL P.O. AND P.S. PANCHGRAM DIST. HAILAKANDI ASSAM. PERMANENT ADDRESS VILL LAMARKHOLA P.O. SHIBERCHAK P.S. BADARPUR DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN 788710. REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER I.E. APPELLANT NO.1 VERSUS

¶10

ATIKUR RAHMAN AND ANR S/O RAJAK ALI, R/O VILL MUGRAPUR, P.O. MARJATKANDI, P.S. BADARPUR, DIST. KARIMGANJ, ASSAM. OWNER OF VEHICLE BEARING REGN. NO. AS-10-C-8489.

¶11

2:THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. REP. BY THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. SILCHAR DIVISION PWD ROAD SILCHAR TOWN CLUB BUILDING P.O. AND P.S. SILCHAR DIST. CACHAR ASSAM. INSURER OF VEHICLE BEARING REGN. NO. AS-10-C-848

¶12

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M H LASKAR

¶13

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. S P SHARMA

¶14

Linked Case : MAC. App./2858/2020 (Filing Number)

¶15

Page No.# 3/7

¶16

AANACHAR ALI @ ANSAR ALI @ ANCHAR ALI AND 4 ORS

¶17

VERSUS

¶18

ATIKUR RAHMAN AND ANR

¶19

-----------Advocate for : Advocate for : appearing for ATIKUR RAHMAN AND ANR

¶20

BEFORE

¶21

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Date : 06.09.2022

¶24

Heard the learned counsels for the parties.

¶25

This Interlocutory Application has been filed seeking condonation of delay of 181 days that had occurred in preferring the accompanying appeal against the Judgment and Award dated 06.05.2019 passed by learned Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Karimganj, in MAC Case No. 241/2017.

¶26

This appeal has been filed by the claimant being aggrieved by the Judgment and Award dated 06.05.2019 passed by learned Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Hailakandi, in MAC Case No. 241/2017 whereby the claim petition of the applicant was allowed and an amount of Rs.7,02,000/- (Rupees seven lakh two thousand) only was directed to be paid by the Opposite Party No.2 namely, the

¶27

Page No.# 4/7

¶28

respondent No.2 herein i.e. Oriental Insurance Company. According to the applicant the evidences which were adduced were not duly considered by the Tribunal and the notional income of the deceased has been treated to be Rs.4000/(Rupees four thousand) only per month without any basis even though his income was Rs.7,500/- (Rupees seven thousand five hundred) only. Accordingly, a wrong multiplier has been used and lesser amount of compensation has been awarded. Being aggrieved, the MAC appeal has been preferred.

¶29

The learned counsels for the parties have been heard and the pleadings on record have been perused. The applicant has urged the following grounds in support of his prayer for condonation of delay:-

¶30

“2. That the applicants/ appellants hail from remote area of Hailakandi district. Due to untimely death of the sole earning member of the family, they have been subjected to severe financial crisis. The applicant/appellant no. 1, who is the husband of the deceased, has to shoulder the burden of the family consisting of his unmarried daughters and minor children. All of them are completely dependent on him.

¶31

3. That the applicants/ appellants beg to state that appellant/applicant no. 1 is an illiterate person and is a patient of low blood pressure suffering from severe physical weakness. As such, he has no earning being unemployed.

¶32

4. That although the impugned award was passed on

¶33

Page No.# 5/7

¶34

06.05.2019, they could not prefer the appeal within time as the applicant/appellant no. 1 has been suffering from his various ailments due to physical witness resulting from low blood pressuer. Moreover, the applicant no. 1 has to look after all his children i.e appellant no. 2 to 5. Because of extreme financial incapacity and ill-health and being an illiterate person, he couldn’t manage to come to Guwahati and engage a counsel for preferring the appeal.

¶35

Copies of medical prescriptions are annexed

¶36

herewith as ANNEXURE-I.

¶37

5. That the applicants/ appellants beg to state that recently the applicant/appellant no. 1 could manage some money and with the help of one of his relatives, he could engage counsel to prefer the statutory appeal and accordingly the instant appeal has been filed. However, in the process, there has been a delay of 181 days in preferring the appeal. ”

¶38

The prayer for condonation has been objected to by the respondent No.2/Insurance Company by filing objections. The respondent No.2 disputes the contentions made by the applicant by contending that the grounds urged do not sufficiently explain the cause of delay. It is contended that the certified copy of the Judgment is not enclosed to the I/A and therefore it could not be ascertained as to when the folio was provided by the applicant and/or as to when the copy was provided to him. The respondent No.2 also disputed the medical certificates enclosed to contend that the same are well after the date of Judgment and Award passed by the MACT. Therefore, the explanation provided by the applicant does not

¶39

Page No.# 6/7

¶40

cover the entire period for which the delay had occurred.

¶41

Perusal of the award dated 06.05.2019 passed by learned Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Hailakandi, in MAC Case No. 241/2017 reveals that the Opposite party/respondent No.1 was the owner cum driver of the offending Auto Rickshaw. Although he has contested the matter before the Tribunal, no directions have been issued by the Tribunal against the said respondent No.2. The award of compensation was directed to be paid by the respondent No.2/Insurance company.

¶42

Office Note reveals steps on respondent No.1 has been effected. However, the same was received by one ‘Abdur Rahman’ and none represents the respondent No.1 when the matter is called up. Considering the fact that there is no specific direction against the respondent No.1 by the Tribunal and also taking into account that this is an application seeking enhancement of the compensation that is awarded, this Court is of the view that no prejudiced will be caused to the respondent No. 1 as the matter is proceeded to be heard without the presence of respondent No.1.

¶43

Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties. Perused the grounds urged for condonation of delay as well as the objections opposing the prayer for condonation of delay. Although objections have been received opposing the prayer for condonation of the delay, the objections are primarily on the ground that the entire period of delay has not been

¶44

Page No.# 7/7

¶45

properly explained. However, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 does not dispute the illness stated to have been suffered by the applicant to contend that the same is not a correct statement. There is no averment that the applicant did not suffer from any such illness as contended in the application seeking condonation of delay.

¶46

Upon 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 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 181 days in filing the accompanying appeal against the Judgment and Award dated 06.05.2019 passed by learned Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Hailakandi, in MAC Case No. 241/2017 is hereby condoned.

¶47

Interlocutory Application is accordingly allowed and disposed of.

¶48

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

¶49

JUDGE

¶50

Comparing Assistant

Aanachar Ali @ Ansar Ali @ Anchar Ali and 4 Ors. v. Atikur Rahman and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aanachar Ali @ Ansar Ali @ Anchar Ali and 4 Ors. v. Atikur Rahman and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smti Bijaya Sahu, Vs the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and 4 Ors.

Xxx Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Luthfa Begum Laskar Vs the State of Assam and Ors.

Ananda Deka Vs Sri Siddharth Singh and 2 Ors.

The Union of India and 4 Ors. Vs Utsab Deb

The Bank of Baroda and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.