The National Insurance Company Limited v. Smti Bhanumoti Barman and Ors E

PageoNo.#o1/3 GAHC010173672022 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:ooI.A.(Civil)/1395/2023 THEoNATIONALoINSURANCEoCOMPANYoLIMITED SUBSIDIARYoOFoGENERALoINSURANCEoCORPORATIONoOFoINDIA)o REGISTEREDoHEADoOFFICEoATo3 oMIDDLETONoSTREET oCALCUTTAo700071 oREPRESENTEDoBYoTHEoDEPUTYoMANAGER oGAUHATIoREGIONALoOFFICE oBHANGAGARH oGUWAHATIo781005 oVERSUS SMTIoBHANUMOTIoBARMANoANDoORSoE W/OoLATEoNANDESWARoBARMAN oR/OoVILL.oSINGHHIMARI oBRAHMATOL oP.O.oNAYAGAON oP.S.oABHAYAPURI oDIST.oBONGAIGAON oASSAM oPINo783384 2:ONoTHEoDEATHoOFoSHAMSUDDINoANSARI HISoLEGALoHEIRSoNAMELY-o2.1:SMToKHUSBUNoNESSA W/OoLATEoSHAMSUDDINoANSARI o2.2:SIRAJUDDINoANSARI S/OoLATEoSHAMSUDDINoANSARI o2.3:AKLAKQUEoANSARI S/OoLATEoSHAMSUDDINoANSARI o2.4:EKRAMoANSARI PageoNo.#o2/3 S/OoLATEoSHAMSUDDINoANSARI o2.5:IQBALoANSARI S/OoLATEoSHAMSUDDINoANSARI o2.6:SMT.oRUBINAoKHATUN D/OoLATEoSHAMSUDDINoANSARI o2.7:SMT.oTAMANNAoKHATUN D/OoLATEoSHAMSUDDINoANSARI o2.8:SMT.oHENAoKHATUN D/OoLATEoSHAMSUDDINoANSARI oALLoAREoRESIDENToOFoR/Oo1/3oJ.K.oGHOSHoROAD oP.O.oBELGACHIA oP.S.oKOLKATA oKOLKATA oWESTBENGAL oPINo700037 oPRESENToADDRESSo-83E/1B/H/14 /oBELGACHIAoROAD oP.O.oBELGACHIA oP.S.oULTRADUNGA oKOLKATA oWESToBENGAL oPINo700037. o3:SHRIoBINDADINoPAL S/OoRAMoDASoPAL oR/Oo61oRAMoBAGHoGWALIOR oP.O. oP.S.oANDoDISTRICToGWALIOR oMADHYAoPRADESH oPINo474002. o------------ oAdvocateoforo:oMS.oRoDoMOZUMDAR Advocateoforo:oappearingoforoSMTIoBHANUMOTIoBARMANoANDoORSoE ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo BEFORE HONOURABLEoMR.oJUSTICEoK.oSEMA ORDERo Dateo:o01.05.2024 oooooooooooooooooooooooo Heard 1 Ms. 1 R. 1 D. 1 Mozumdar, 1 learned 1 counsel 1 for 1 the Page No.# 3/3 applicant/insurance company and Mr. R. Islam, learned counsel for the claimant/opposite party No.1. The present application has been filed under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, seeking for condonation of delay of 626 days in filing the substitution application for substituting the legal heirs of the respondent No.2. Mr. R. Islam, learned counsel for the claimant/opposite party No.1 submits that he has no objection, if the delay of 626 days is condoned. The grounds for delay in filing the substitution application has been stated in paragraph-3 to 8 of the application. This court has perused the application seeking for condonation of delay and satisfied that the applicant has satisfactorily explained the delay of 626 days in filing the substitution application to substitute legal heirs of the respondent No.2. The application is accordingly allowed. The application stands disposed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant