- Court
- High Court of Gauhati
- Decided
- 25 June 2024
- Bench
- Sanjay Kumar Medhi
- Case no.
- I.A.(Civil) 1283/2021
Judgment
ORDER
26.06.2024 Heard Shri SK Goswami, learned counsel for the applicant while none is present for the respondents. Similar situation was also there on the last occasion i.e. 05.06.2024.
¶2By this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with proviso to Section 173 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Act, 1988, a prayer has been made for condonation of delay of 2693 days in preferring the connected appeal against the judgment and award dated 20.04.2012 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cachar at Silchar in MAC Case No. 989/2007. It is submitted that initially an appeal was presented along with statutory deposit of Rs.25,000/- which however had gone missing from the Filing Section. Even after complaint, the records could not be traced out and therefore, the applicant had to prefer the present appeal and in the said process, the delay has occurred.
¶3As an objection was raised by the contesting respondent that no materials were placed before this Court in support of the plea of presenting the appeal Page No.# 3/3 earlier, the applicnt had filed an additional affidavit to bring on record such documents and proof.
¶4The materials on record have been duly examined.
¶5This Court is of the opinion that no fault can be attributed for the delay in preferring the connected appeal due to the facts and circumstances narrated above.
¶6In view of the aforesaid discussion, the delay is condoned and the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant
Case details
Parties and counsel
PageoNo.#o1/3 GAHC010318122019 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oI.A.(Civil)/1283/2021o THEoORIENTALoINSURANCEoCO.oLTD.,o AoCOMPANYoREGISTEREDoUNDERoTHEoCOMPANIESoACT,o1956.oREP.oBYoITS REGIONALoMANAGER,oULUBARI,oGUWAHATI-7. VERSUSo KAMALAoRAJKUMARIoANDo4oORS.o W/O-oLATEoPRADIPoRAJKUMAR,oR/O-oVILL.-oDUDPUR,oP.S.oKATIGORAH,o CACHAR,oASSAM-o788025. 2:LAXMANoSARNADEEPoRAJKUMAR oS/O-oLATEoPRADIPoRAJKUMAR oR/O-oVILL.-oDUDPUR oP.S.oKATIGORAH oCACHAR oASSAM-o788025. 3:CHOTUoPAUL oS/O-oLATEoPRADIPoRAJKUMAR oR/O-oVILL.-oDUDPUR oP.S.oKATIGORAH oCACHAR oASSAM-o788025.o(RESPONDENToNOS.o2oANDo3oAREoMINORS oTHEYoRESIDEoWITHoTHEIRoMOTHERoBEINGoNATURALoGUARDIANoANDo ASoSUCHoMINORSoAREoREP.oBYoTHEIRoMOTHERoKAMALAoRAJKUMARI. 4:MRS.oFULLoMARYoKHONGSIT oR/O-oBHOLAGANJ oEASToKHASIoHILLS oMEGHALAYA oPIN-o793108. Page No.# 2/3 5:BIPLOB DAS S/O- KUKIL DAS R/O- BHOLAGANJ SHELLA P.S. SOHRA EAST KHASI HILLS MEGHALAYA PIN- 793108 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S K GOSWAMI Advocate for the Respondent : MRS. R RONGMEI (R1) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
Source: High Court of Gauhati, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.