Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010277522024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/1947/2025 ON THE DEATH OF MUSTAFIZUR RAHMAN HIS LEGAL HIERS JAHANARA BEGUM AND ORS W/O LATE MUSTAFIZUR RAHMAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MORI MUSLIM GAON, PO PS AND DIST MORIGAON, ASSAM 782105 2: SAHIL RAHMAN S/O LATE MUSTAFIZUR RAHMAN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MORI MUSLIM GAON PO PS AND DIST MORIGAON ASSAM 782105 3: SUHANA RAHMAN D/O LATE MUSTAFIZUR RAHMAN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MORI MUSLIM GAON PO PS AND DIST MORIGAON ASSAM 782105. TO BE REP. BY PET. NO. VERSUS THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD DHIANG ARCADE, 4TH FLOOR, ABC GS ROAD, GUWAHATI 05 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M TALUKDAR, Advocate for the Respondent : MR. A J SAIKIA, Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER ORDER Date : 08-06-2026 Heard Mr. M. Talukdar, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. A.J. Saikia, learned counsel for the respondent/Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. 2. The instant application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has been filed for condonation of delay of 1826 days in filing the application for setting aside the abatement of appeal. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the husband/father of the applicants, one Late Mustafizur Rahman as the appellant had filed the MAC Appeal no. 557/2017 against the Judgment and Order dated 09.12.2015 passed by the learned MACT, Morigaon, Assam in MAC Appeal no. 2169/2011, which is pending before this Court. 4. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant expired on 14.08.2017. It is further submitted that the applicant had no knowledge about the pendency of MAC Appeal no. 2169/2011. The applicants came to know about the pendency of the appeal only when the applicant no. 1 met the counsel on 05.01.2023 for some other purpose in the Court at Morigaon. The applicant no. 1 informed the counsel that her husband/appellant expired on 14.08.2017. The learned counsel then advised the applicant no. 1 to contact the present counsel as soon as possible. 5. It is further submitted that the applicants contacted the present counsel the very next day and informed him about the demise of the applicant. Upon receiving such information, the present counsel advised the applicants to file an Page No.# 3/5 application for condonation of delay, an application for substitution of legal heirs as well as an application for setting aside of abatement of the appeal. 6. The applicants took some time in financial arrangements for filing the applications as advised by their counsel and managed to come to Guwahati on 10.01.2023 and met the counsel for preparation of the application i.e. the application for condonation of delay in filing the application for substitution of legal heirs being I.A.(Civil) no. 579/2023 and an application for setting aside the abatement being I.A.(Civil) no. 578/2023and another application for substitution of legal heirs being I.A.(Civil) No. 577/2023 and the same were filed on 17.01.2023. Thereby, a delay of 1826 days has been caused in filing the application for setting aside the abatement of the appeal. 7. The learned counsel for the applicants submits that there is no intentional delay or negligence on their part in filing the application for setting aside the abatement of appeal after the period of limitation. It is stated that the applicants are uneducated and ignorant villagers and accordingly, they were not aware about the filing of the MAC Appeal by the deceased appellant and they were also not aware that the legal heirs have to be substituted upon demise of the appellant. 8. The learned counsel for the applicants submits that if the condonation of delay of 1826 days is not condoned by this court, irreparable loss would be caused to the applicants herein. It is, therefore, prayed that the delay of 1826 days may be condoned and the application for setting aside of abatement of appeal may be considered by this Court. 9. Mr. Saikia, learned counsel for the respondent/Reliance General Insurance Page No.# 4/5 Co. Ltd. has made his objection to the instant application stating that the only reason given for delay is alleged to be lack of communication between the client and the counsel. He states that the reason is unbelievable and appears to be a lame excuse to cover up for their lack of communication. He submits that the delay has not been properly explained and accordingly, submits that the instant application should be dismissed by this Court. 10. This court has considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings. It is seen that the deceased appellant has filed the MAC Appeal no. 557/2017 against the Judgment and Order dated 09.12.2015 passed by the learned MACT, Morigaon, Assam in MAC Appeal no. 2169/2011. The said appeal has been preferred claiming compensation for injuries sustained by the appellant in a motor vehicle accident. In the instant case, it is not disputed by the respondents that the deceased appellant had suffered injuries due to motor vehicle accident and therefore, the factum of the accident is not denied by the respondent/insurance company. The applicants are the wife and children of the deceased appellant and earlier they were not party in MAC Appeal no. 557/2017 and they were not aware that the appellant had filed the appeal and hence, they were not aware that the appeal was pending before this Court. The applicants are uneducated villagers and they came to know about the necessity of filling the application for substitution only when they met the local counsel on 05.01.2023 for some other purpose in the court at Morigaon. It is also seen that the applicants informed the counsel about the demise of the appellant only when they met on 05.01.2023 and they were advised by the counsel to file the instant application for condonation as well as substitution to file an application against the abatement of the appeal. The local counsel had thereafter, advised the applicants to approach the present counsel Page No.# 5/5 at the Gauhati High Court. 11. The applicant has not explained the delay in filing the application before 05.01.2023 and has only explained the delay from 05.01.2023. However, this Court is of the view that the applicants could not have known about the necessity of filing a substitution application and they are not expected to know about the legal implications of steps to be taken upon demise of the original appellant. No doubt the delay of 1826 days is a huge delay but in cases of condonation, the facts and circumstances of each case have to be examined by the Court. In this case, the applicants came to know about the necessity of filing an application against abatement and for substitution only on 05.01.2023. 12. This Court is of the view that substantial justice would be denied to the applicants if the condonation application is not allowed as they would not be able to avail the benefits of the compensation due to their father’s/husband’s injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. 13. Accordingly, the delay of 1826 days in filing this application is condoned. Accordingly, the instant application is allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant