Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 1]

Gauhati High Court

Smti Anowara Begum And 3 Ors vs Smti Bina Choudhury And 2 Ors on 18 August, 2022

Author: R.M. Chhaya

Bench: R.M. Chhaya

                                                                      Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010134572017




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

                       Case No. : I.A. (Civil) No.2381 of 2017
                       In MAC Appeal No.297938/2017 (Filing Number)

            1: SMTI ANOWARA BEGUM and 3 ORS,
            W/O LATE ALI AKBAR

            2: MANIRUZ ZAMAN
            S/O LATE ALI AKBAR

            3: NURUL HOQUE
            S/O LATE ALI AKBAR

            4: ABDUL AZIZ
            S/O LATE ALI AKBAR
            ALL ARE PERMANENT R/O VILL. KHAIRAARI
            P.S. BARPETA ROAD DIST. BARPETA

                              VERSUS

            1: SMTI BINA CHOUDHURY and 2 ORS,
            W/O SHRI RADHYSHYAM CHOUDHURY, R/O VILL. BARPETA ROAD, P.S.
            BARPETA, DIST. BARPETA, PIN OWNER OF THE VEHICLE NO. AMU 1589
            TRUCK

            2:MD. MIRAJ ALI
            S/O MD. INCHAN ALI
            R/O VILL. GANDHIPARA P.S. BARPETA ROAD
            DIST. BARPETA DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE NO. AMU 1589 TRUCK

            3:THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. BARPETA ROAD BRANCH
            MICROW OFFICE P.S. BARPETA ROAD DIST. BARPETA ASSAM
            REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGE

Advocate for the Petitioner    : MR. S G BHATTACHARJEE

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. R C PAUL (R-3)
                                                                                Page No.# 2/3



                            -BEFORE-
              HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. R.M. CHHAYA

                                          ORDER

Date : 18-08-2022 None appears for the applicants/appellants. However, Mr. R.C. Paul, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent No.3/ Insurance Company is present.

Presence of the respondent Nos.1 & 2, i.e. the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle involving in the accident, is not necessary in deciding the application for condonation of delay as the applicants/appellants have prayed for enhancement of the compensation awarded.

By this application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with the provision to Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the applicants/appellants have prayed for condonation of delay of 195 days in preferring the connected appeal.

Considering the averments made in this application, more particularly in Paragraphs 2, 3 & 4 of this application, I am of the view that the applicants/appellants have been able to establish sufficient cause for condonation of delay.

In the light of the aforesaid, delay of 195 days occurred in filing the connected appeal deserves to be condoned and the same is hereby condoned.

The interlocutory application is allowed. Registry to register and number the connected appeal and list the same for admission hearing on 24.08.2022 before the regular Bench.

CHIEF JUSTICE Page No.# 3/3 Comparing Assistant