Allowed

On the Death of Late Kamal Talukdar His Legal Heir Rupam Talukdar v. Sri Homeswar Barman and Ors.

Gauhati HC13 Sept 2026I.A.(Civil)/1592/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

GAHC allowed an application for condonation of delay in filing a substitution petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The court held there was no intentional delay due to the death of the original appellant and lack of knowledge by legal heirs, and the earlier counsel had been elevated to the bench.

What did the court decide?

Allowed the application and condoned the delay of 1846 days in filing the substitution petition.

On the Death of Late Kamal Talukdar His Legal Heir Rupam… — Consumer Protection | Gauhati HC (2026)

Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010077872026

2026:GAU-AS:13487

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

¶5

Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/1592/2026

¶6

ON THE DEATH OF LATE KAMAL TALUKDAR HIS LEGAL HEIR RUPAM TALUKDAR LEGAL REP. AND SON OF LATE KAMAL TALUKDAR, R/O- VILL.KENDUKUCHI, DIST.- NALBARI, ASSAM, PIN- 781341

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

SRI HOMESWAR BARMAN AND ORS

¶9

S/O- LATE PRABHAT BARMAN, R/O- VILL.- BAGANPARA, P.S. BARBARI, DIST.- BASKA, ASSAM, PIN- 781349. (OWNER OF VEHICLE NO. AS-14/3915 (BUS).

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : MS T WAPANGLA,

¶11

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. R C PAUL,

¶12

Linked Case : MACApp./428/2019

¶13

SHRI KAMAL TALUKDAR S/O- SRI BAPA TALUKDAR R/O- VILL.- KENDUKUCHI DIST.- NALBARI ASSAM PIN- 781337.

¶14

Page No.# 2/5

¶15

VERSUS SRI HOMESWAR BARMAN AND 2 ORS. S/O- LATE PRABHAT BARMAN R/O- VILL.- BAGANPARA P.S. BARBARI DIST.- BASKA ASSAM PIN- 781349. (OWNER OF VEHICLE NO. AS-14/3915 (BUS). 2:SRI MADAN RAJBONGSHI S/O- B. RAJBONGSHI R/O- VILL.- BALITORA P.S. AND DIST.- NALBARI ASSAM PIN- 781349. (DRIVER OF VEHICLE NO. AS-14/3915 (BUS). 3:THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED RT OFFICE NALBARI- 781335. (POLICY NO. 530902/31/07/01/00001904 VALID UPTO 111/2009. -----------Advocate for : MR. R MAZUMDAR Advocate for : MR. A DUTTA appearing for SRI HOMESWAR BARMAN AND 2 ORS.

¶16

BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER

¶17

ORDER

¶18

14/09/2026

¶19

The instant application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has been filed by the applicant praying for condonation of delay of 1846 days in filling the substitution petition in MAC App.NO.428/2019.

¶20

Heard learned counsel, Ms. T. Wapangla, for the applicants. Also heard Mr. R.C. Paul for respondent No. 3.

¶21

It is submitted that even before the tribunal, the respondent Nos. 1&

¶22

Page No.# 3/5

¶23

2/Driver and Owner of the offending vehicle did not contest the claim petition.

¶24

In view of the said application, the notice on respondent Nos. 1 & 2 is waved.

¶25

The case of the applicant herein is that, he is the son of lt. Kamal Talukdar, who had preferred the MAC Appeal No. 428/2019. During the pendency of the appeal, the said appellant, Kamal Talukdar expired on 02.11.2020. Subsequently, the mother of the applicant also expired in the month of December 2025 before she could be substituted as appellant in the MAC Appeal. As such the applicant was not aware about the pendency of the MAC Appeal No. 428/2019. Moreover, it is stated that another counsel had been looking after the MAC Appeal No. 428/2019 who was subsequently elevated to the bench.

¶26

It is also submitted that the MAC Appeal No. 428/2019 was first listed on 21.08.2019 and notice was issued returnable by 4 (four) weeks. Therefore, the matter was to be listed after 4 (four) weeks. However, the case was listed only on 19.11.2025.

¶27

On 19.11.2025, the present counsel who had been engaged had sought for an adjournment to seek instruction from the appellant as the counsel did not have any contact with the appellant. Therefore, the matter was listed on 18.12.2025 by which time, the counsel came to know that the appellant had expired. The present counsel prayed for some time to take appropriate steps for substituting the legal heirs of the deceased appellant and to contact the legal heirs if any.

¶28

It is the further submission of the counsel for the appellant that there has been no intentional delay or deliberate inaction on the part of the applicant as

¶29

Page No.# 4/5

¶30

he came to know about the pendency of the MAC Appeal No. 428/2019 only in the month of January 2026. Thereafter, the present engaged counsel was informed about the death of the appellant and steps were taken to file the instant application. It is stated that due to the delayed knowledge about the pendency of the MAC Appeal No. 428/2019 due to the fact that the appellant as well as his wife had passed away and the present applicant did not have any knowledge of the same, there has been a delay of 1846 days in filing the instant I.A. It is therefore prayed that the delay of 1846 days may be condoned and the applicant may be allowed to be substituted as legal heirs of the deceased applicant in MAC Appeal No. 428/2019.

¶31

Learned counsel, Mr. R.C. Paul, for the respondent/Insurance Company has not opposed the instant application in view of the fact that there appears to be genuine reason for the delay as the appellant as well as his wife had expired during the pendency of the MAC Appeal No. 428/2019 and the applicant who is the son of the legal heir could not have known about the pendency of the MAC Appeal No. 428/2019 and further in view of the fact that the earlier counsel who was dealing with the matter had already been elevated to the bench during the pendency.

¶32

This Court after having considered the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant and upon examining the pleadings, it is of the view that the instant application needs to be allowed in the interest of justice. This Court has seen that there has been no intentional delay or deliberate in action on the part of the applicant.

¶33

Accordingly, the application is allowed and the delay of 1846 days in filing the instant application is condoned.

¶34

Page No.# 5/5

¶35

JUDGE

¶36

Comparing Assistant

On the Death of Late Kamal Talukdar His Legal Heir Rupam Talukdar v. Sri Homeswar Barman and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

On the Death of Late Kamal Talukdar His Legal Heir Rupam Talukdar v. Sri Homeswar Barman and Ors.

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