Allowed¶43

Kuhinur Khatun and 3 Ors. v. the Regional Manager and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC14 Jun 2026I.A.(Civil)/2790/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Gauhati High Court, Kaushik Goswami J, order dated 15.06.2026 in I.A.(Civil)/2790/2024: condonation of 16-day delay in filing appeal under Section 173 Motor Vehicle Act 1988 against judgment dated 02/05/2024 of Member MACT Chirang Kajalgaon in MAC Case No. 06/2023; widow applicant's financial hardship and ill-health after husband's sudden demise accepted as sufficient cause; respondent No. 1 (HDFC ERGO) did not oppose; delay condoned, application allowed, appeal to be registered and listed with MACApp./456/2024.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of the 16-day delay in filing the appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988; the appeal to be registered, numbered and listed along with MACApp./456/2024. ¶43

Kuhinur Khatun and 3 Ors. Vs the Regional Manager and… — Motor Accident Claims | Gauhati HC (2026)

Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010176642024

2026:GAU-AS:8456

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

¶5

Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/2790/2024

¶6

KUHINUR KHATUN AND 3 ORS W/O LATE SAMSUL ALI DEWAN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHOTO MOZABARI, PO MOZABARI, DIST CHIRANG, BTR ASSAM

¶7

2: SAMILA KHATUN

¶8

D/O LATE SAMSUL ALI DEWAN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHOTO MOZABARI PO MOZABARI DIST CHIRANG BTR ASSAM. TO BE REP. BY PET. NO. 1

¶9

3: NOORJUL HOQUE D/O LATE SAMSUL ALI DEWAN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHOTO MOZABARI PO MOZABARI DIST CHIRANG BTR ASSAM. TO BE REP. BY PET. NO. 1

¶10

4: SARJINA KHATUN

¶11

D/O LATE SAMSUL ALI DEWAN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHOTO MOZABARI PO MOZABARI DIST CHIRANG BTR ASSAM. TO BE REP. BY PET. NO.

¶12

VERSUS

¶13

THE REGIONAL MANAGER AND 4 ORS

¶14

HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ADITYAM BUILDING, 6TH FLOOR, G S ROAD, LACHIT NAGAR, GUWAHATI 07

¶15

Page No.# 2/4

¶16

2:THE REGIONAL MANAGER BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED SREEJI TOWER 2ND FLOOR CHRISTIANBASTI. GS ROAD GUWAHATI 05

¶17

3:INCHUP ALI S/O AYNUL HOQUE

¶18

RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BORTALOWA PO DHALIGAON DIST CHIRANG BTR ASSAM

¶19

4:ISLAM ALI S/O AYNUL HOQUE

¶20

RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BORTALOWA PO DHALIGAON DIST CHIRANG BTR ASSAM

¶21

5:JOYNAL ALI DEWAN S/O LATE AKKES ALI DEWAN

¶22

RESIDENT OF BALAIPATHER PO KALGACHIA DIST BARPETA ASSA

¶23

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR F A LASKAR, R MANDAL (P-1,3,4),MR. R GHOSH (P1,3,4),MR. C SHARMA (P-1,3,4),S K PODDAR (P-1,3,4),MR. D H MOZUMDER

¶24

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. P HAZARIKA (R- 2), P. BORAH(R- 2)

¶25

Linked Case :

¶26

KUHINUR KHATUN AND 3 ORS

¶27

VERSUS

¶28

Page No.# 3/4

¶29

THE REGIONAL MANAGER AND 4 ORS B

¶30

-----------Advocate for : MR F A LASKAR Advocate for : appearing for THE REGIONAL MANAGER AND 4 ORS B

¶31

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI

¶32

ORDER

¶33

Date : 15.06.2026

¶34

Heard Mr. S.K. Poddar, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1.

¶35

2. By way of the present interlocutory application, the applicant seeks condonation of a delay of 16 days in preferring the connected appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, against the judgment dated 02/05/2024 passed by the Member MACT, Chirang, Kajalgaon, Assam, in MAC Case No. 06/2023.

¶36

3. The grounds of delay are explained as under: -

¶37

“ 2. That the impugned judgment and decree was passed 2/5/2024 and there has been a delay of 16 days in filing the instant appeal. The applicant No.1 begs to submit that on the sudden demise of her husband she has been suffering heavy financial crisis to maintain her family and the applicants No. 2 to 4 are school going kids, considerable amount of money has been expended monthly for the purpose of education of the kids apart from the other liabilities of the applicants. Being a widow the applicant No.1 could not approach before this Hon'ble Court in due time due to her financial crisis. On the other hand due to several sicknesses she could not approach before this Hon'ble Court

¶38

Page No.# 4/4

¶39

in time. As a result, little delay of 16 days has been caused to file the connected appeal, the said delay is neither intentional nor deliberate. Hence the delay may be condoned by this Hon'ble Court for the interest of justice.”

¶40

4. Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel, submits that he has no instructions to oppose the prayer for condonation of delay.

¶41

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the averments made in the application, this Court is satisfied that the delay has been adequately explained and that sufficient cause has been shown for not filing the appeal within the prescribed period.

¶42

6. Accordingly, the delay of 16 days in filing the appeal stands condoned.

¶43

7. The interlocutory application is allowed.

¶44

8. Let the appeal be registered and numbered and listed along with MACApp./456/2024 .

¶45

JUDGE

¶46

Comparing Assistant

Kuhinur Khatun and 3 Ors. v. the Regional Manager and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuhinur Khatun and 3 Ors. v. the Regional Manager and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bitumix India LLP Vs Union of India and 3 Ors.

SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sazia Ahmed and 4 Ors.

Shahid Hossain Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Vs Miss Soniya Bedia and 2 Ors.

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Kasim Uddin Mazumder and Anr.

Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sabina Begum and 3 Ors.