Allowed

Phanidhar Das v. Homeswar Barman

Gauhati HC7 Sept 2022I.A.(Civil)/989/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court order dealt with an application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal. The Court allowed the prayer, accepting the applicant's explanation of financial hardship and lack of access to counsel as valid grounds, relying on established precedent to dismiss the objection based on the delay period.

What did the court decide?

The delay of 135 days in filing the appeal is condoned; the connected appeal is listed after two weeks.

Phanidhar Das Vs Homeswar Barman — Motor Accident Claims | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010058242018

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/989/2018

¶5

PHANIDHAR DAS

¶6

VILL. BARIKADONGA, P.S. BARBARI, DIST. BAKSA (BTAD), ASSAM.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

HOMESWAR BARMAN

¶9

VILL. BAGANPARA, P.S. BARBARI, DIST. BASKA, ASSAM (OWNER OF VEHICLE NO. AS-14/3915 BUS)

¶10

2:SRI MADAN RAJBONGSHI VILL. BALITORA P.S. AND DIST. NALBARI ASSAM (DRIVER OF VEHICLE NO. AS-14/3915 BUS) (DRIVING LICENCE NO. 278/NB/06/MISC ISSUE DATE 03/01/03 TO 09/01/09

¶11

3:THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. (INSURER OF VEHICLE NO. AS-14/3915 BUS) (POLICY NO. 530902/31/07/01/00001904 VALID FROM 12/1/2008 TO 11/1/200

¶12

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R MAZUMDAR

¶13

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. A DUTTA

¶14

Linked Case : MACApp./187/2018

¶15

PHANIDHAR DAS VILL. BARIKADONGA P.S. BARBARI

¶16

Page No.# 2/4

¶17

DIST. BAKSA (BTAD) ASSAM.

¶18

VERSUS

¶19

HOMESWAR BARMAN VILL. BAGANPARA P.S. BARBARI DIST. BASKA ASSAM (OWNER OF VEHICLE NO. AS-14/3915 BUS)

¶20

2:SRI MADAN RAJBONGSHI VILL. BALITORA P.S. AND DIST. NALBARI

¶21

ASSAM (DRIVER OF VEHICLE NO. AS-14/3915 BUS) (DRIVING LICENCE NO. 278/NB/06/MISC ISSUE DATE 03/01/03 TO 09/01/09 3:THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. (INSURER OF VEHICLE NO. AS-14/3915 BUS) (POLICY NO. 530902/31/07/01/00001904 VALID FROM 12/1/2008 TO 11/1/2009 -----------Advocate for : MR. R MAZUMDAR Advocate for : appearing for HOMESWAR BARMAN

¶22

BEFORE

¶23

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA

¶24

ORDER

¶25

07.09.2022

¶26

Heard Mr. H. Bezaruah, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. A. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3

¶27

2. Notices on respondents No. 1 & 2 have been returned unserved.

¶28

3. This interlocutory application has been filed by the applicant who is aggrieved by the award made by the MACT No. 3, Kamrup at Guwahati in MAC No. 1698/2009 by Judgment and Award dated 29.05.2017. The applicant as a claimant was awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) only with an interest of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the evidence on affidavit. Being aggrieved, the present interlocutory application has been filed with the

¶29

Page No.# 3/4

¶30

process delay of 135 days had occurred.

¶31

4. On perusal of the impugned award it is seen that the respondents No. 1 & 2 were the owner and the driver respectively of the vehicle although Notices have been served but they did not appear before the Tribunal and contest the case. That apart, there is no direction issued by the Tribunal against the respondents No. 1 & 2 and the appeal has been filed seeking enhancement of the quantum. Thereafter, the respondents No. 1 & 2 will be heard at the time of hearing the appeal. As such, this Court is of the view that the prayer for condonation of delay can be heard in the absence of respondents No. 1, 2 and as no prejudice will be caused to them.

¶32

5. The learned counsels for the parties have been heard. Pleadings on records have been duly perused.

¶33

6. Mr. A. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 fairly submits that he has no objections if the delay is condoned.

¶34

7. The grounds urged in support of the prayer for condonation of delay are as under:-

¶35

“2. That the aforesaid case was contested by the respondent No. 3 (Insurance Company) and the case was closed on 29.05.2017 by the Learned Member awarding a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- with an interest of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the evidence on affidavit, in favour of the claimant and the said amount to be paid by the Respondent No. 3 to the claimant in a period of one month from the date of the order. It is stated that being aggrieved by the compensation granted by the Learned Member at the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 3, the applicant has preferred the connected M.A.C. Appeal. There has been a delay in filing of the MAC Appeal and the applicant/appellant submits the following grounds for such delay:

¶36

That it is submitted that after delivering of the judgment in the MAC Case, the appellant/claimant met the counsel, applied for a certified copy of the judgment on 12.06.2017 and received it on 13.06.2017. It is submitted that during the time after judgment and also after the receipt of the copy of the judgment the appellant was facing financial difficulties. The appellant is a poor farmer at District Baksa, and being burdened with day to day responsibilities he could not arrange promptly for the filing

¶37

Page No.# 4/4

¶38

of the appeal at Guwahati.

¶39

That it is stated that severe financial hardship restrained him from instant filing of the appeal against the impugned judgment and order of the case in spite of his sincere efforts and endeavor.

¶40

That the applicant/appellant, after few months, was able to make arrangements to come and meet the counsel in Guwahati as it was only in the last week of November 2017 that the counsel and appellant could meet and thereafter the counsel could prepare the draft of appeal against the judgment and the appellant verified the connecting appeal.”

¶41

8. Upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties and upon consideration of the grounds urged, this Court is of the view that the grounds urged can be considered to be sufficient explanation of the delay that had 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 dilatory tactics. On the grounds urged in the Interlocutory Application, this Court finds that the delay that had occurred in filing the accompanying appeal can be condoned.

¶42

9. Relying upon the principle laid down in N. Balakrishnan Vs. M Krishnamurthy reported in (1998) 7 SCC 123, the delay of 135 days in filing the accompanying appeal against the Judgment and Award dated 29.05.2017 passed by the learned Member, MACT No. 3, Kamrup at Guwahati in MAC Case No. 1698/2009 is hereby condoned.

¶43

10. The interlocutory application is, accordingly, allowed and disposed of.

¶44

11. Since the connected appeal has already been registered and numbered, Registry is directed to list the connected appeal after two weeks.

¶45

JUDGE

¶46

Comparing Assistant

Phanidhar Das v. Homeswar Barman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Phanidhar Das v. Homeswar Barman

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

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

Ananda Deka Vs Sri Siddharth Singh and 2 Ors.

The Union of India and 4 Ors. Vs Utsab Deb

The Food Corporation of India and 2 Ors. Vs M/S. G. B. Chowdhury Holdings Pvt. Ltd.

The National Insurance Company Limited Vs Smti. Tunu Das and 3 Ors.

Parthapratim Phukan Vs Punjab National Bank and 2 Ors.