Smt Minati Das and Anr. Vs Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Limited and 2 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Smt Minati Das and Anr. Vs Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Limited and 2 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Delay of 17 days in preferring the connected MACAppeal condoned; interlocutory application allowed; Registry directed to register the connected MACAppeal and list the same for admission after a week on a date to be fixed by the Registry; application thereafter disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether sufficient cause exists for the delay of 17 days in preferring the connected MACAppeal, justifying condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. +1 more

Court's answer

The grounds stated in paragraph Nos. 5 and 6 of the interlocutory application amount to sufficient cause which prevented the applicants from filing the connected appeal within the prescribed period of limitation; accordingly, the delay of 17 days in preferring the connected appeal is condoned and the instant interlocutory application is allowed.

Ratio / Principle

Since notice issued to respondent No. 2 was duly served and none appeared for respondent No. 2, the court decided to proceed ex parte against respondent No. 2 in the interlocutory application.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Interlocutory Application I.A.(Civil)/745/2026 in the connected MACApp. Case No. 2015/2026, Gauhati High Court, decided 07.05.2026 by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita. The applicants — Smt. Minati Das (widow of Late Jadab Das) and Kushal Das (son of Late Jadab Das), claimants in a motor-accident matter — prayed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of a 17-day delay in filing the appeal impugning the judgment and order dated 20.12.2024 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 3, Kamrup (M), in MAC Case No. 2102/2016. Per the Office Note dated 04.05.2026, notice on respondent No. 2 stood duly served yet none appeared, whereupon the court proceeded ex parte against respondent No. 2. Holding the grounds in paragraph Nos. 5 and 6 of the application to constitute sufficient cause, the court condoned the 17-day delay, allowed the interlocutory application, directed the Registry to register the connected MACAppeal and list it for admission after a week on a date to be fixed by the Registry, and closed by recording the application as disposed of.

Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010035832026

undefined

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

Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/745/2026

SMT MINATI DAS AND ANR

W/O LATE JADAB DAS, RESIDENT OF VILL.- BANKAKATA (DAKSHIN), P.S.CHHAYGAON, P.O.- BAMUNIGAON, DIST- KAMRUP (ASSAM). PIN- 781141.

2: KUSHAL DAS S/O LATE JADAB DAS RESIDENT OF VILL.- BANKAKATA (DAKSHIN) P.S.- CHHAYGAON P.O.- BAMUNIGAON DIST- KAMRUP (ASSAM). PIN- 781141

VERSUS

ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND 2 ORS. REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, OFFICE- G.S. ROAD, RUKMINI GAON, GUWAHATI -22.

2:AJIT KR. KALITA S/O LATE HARKANTA KALITA VILL- KHUTABARI P.S.- DHUPDHARA DISTRICT- GOALPARA (ASSAM)

3:MD. HAFIZUR RAHMAN S/O NAZMUL HAQUE RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 47 WARD NO. 13 DHIRENPARA FATASIL P.S.- FATASIL AMBARI GUWAHATI DISTRICT- KAMRUP (M) ASSA

Page No.# 2/3

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR J MOLLAH, MS. S P DAS,MRS. A BHANU

Advocate for the Respondent : ,

In

MACApp. Case No. 2015/2026 With MACApp. Case No. 2015/2026 (Filing Number)

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA

ORDER

07.05.2026

[1] Heard Mr. J. Mollah, the learned counsel for the applicants.

[2] On perusal of the Office Note dated 04.05.2026, it appears that notice issued to respondent No. 2 has been duly served. However, none has appeared for the respondent No. 2. Therefore, this court shall proceed ex parte against respondent No. 2 in this interlocutory application.

[3] This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has been filed by the applicants/claimants praying for condonation of delay of 17 days in preferring the connected MACAppeal, whereby the judgment and order dated 20.12.2024,

Page No.# 3/3

passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 3, Kamrup (M),in MAC Case No. 2102/2016 has been impugned.

[4] The learned counsel for the applicants submits that the delay has been properly explained in paragraph Nos. 5 and 6 of the instant interlocutory application.

[5] I have gone through the said grounds. [6] Considering the grounds stated in paragraph Nos. 5 and 6, the instant application to be sufficient cause, which prevented the applicants from filing the connected appeal within the prescribed period of limitation, the delay of 17 days in preferring the connected appeal is hereby condoned and the instant interlocutory application is allowed.

[7] The Registry is directed to register the connected MACAppeal and list the same for admission after a week, on a date to be fixed by Registry.

[8] This interlocutory application is, accordingly, disposed of.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant