Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010003572023 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/1589/2023 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NEW INDIA ASSURANCE BUILDING, 87, MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD, MUMBAI, AND ONE OF THE REGIONAL OFFICES KNOWN AS NORTH EAST REGIONAL OFFICE AT GS ROAD, ULUBARI, GUWAHATI 7, ASSAM VERSUS SEEMA SHARMA AND 4 ORS. W/O LATE KAMAL KR. SHARMA RESIDENT OF A.T ROAD, HAIBARAGAON, PS SADAR, DIST NAGAON, ASSAM 782002 2:MISS PRIYANSHI SHARMA D/O LATE KAMAL KR. SHARMA RESIDENT OF A.T ROAD HAIBARAGAON PS SADAR DIST NAGAON ASSAM 782002 3:MUSHTAQUE AHMED S/O MD. AZIM RESIDENT OF AT ROAD KHUTIKATIA DIST NAGAON ASSAM 782002 4:RAJENDRA SINGH S/O MUKHTIAR SINGH RESIDENT OF A.T ROAD HAIBARGAON Page No.# 2/5 DIST NAGAON ASSAM 782002 5:UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. PADMALAYA COMPLEX HAIBARGAON NAGAON ASSAM 78200 Advocate for the Petitioner : MS P HUJURI, MR. R K BHATRA,MS R GANGAWAT Advocate for the Respondent : MR. S CHAMARIA(R-1), MR A N SARMAH(R-1),MR N M DEKA(R-1),MR R AKHTAR(R-1),MOMI KALITA(R-1),MR M M ZAMAN(R-1) Linked Case : NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. VERSUS SEEMA SHARMA AND 4 ORS. A ------------ Advocate for : MS P HUJURI Advocate for : appearing for SEEMA SHARMA AND 4 ORS. A Linked Case : NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. VERSUS SEEMA SHARMA AND 4 ORS. A Page No.# 3/5 ------------ Advocate for : MS P HUJURI Advocate for : appearing for SEEMA SHARMA AND 4 ORS. A Linked Case : NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. VERSUS SEEMA SHARMA AND 4 ORS. A ------------ Advocate for : MS P HUJURI Advocate for : appearing for SEEMA SHARMA AND 4 ORS. A BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 08.06.2026 Heard Mr. R. K. Bhatra, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. S. Chamaria, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1. 2. This interlocutory application under Section 173(1) of the MV Act, read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act, is preferred by the applicant for condonation of delay of 119 days in preferring the connected appeal, challenging the Judgment and Award, dated 08.11.2016, passed by the learned Member, Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, in MAC Case No. 443/2014. 3. Mr. Bhatra, learned counsel for the applicant submits that though, the Page No.# 4/5 learned MACT has pronounced its judgment on 08.11.2016, thereafter, the applicant herein had preferred one review petition, upon which, Misc. Case No. 06/2019 was registered and after hearing both the parties, the learned Tribunal has dismissed the said Review Petition on 04.08.2022. Thereafter, the applicant had preferred the MAC appeal on 03.01.2023, challenging the Judgment and Award passed by the learned Tribunal, dated 08.11.2016; and in the process, a delay of 119 days had occurred in preferring the connected appeal and the said delay has been explained in paragraph Nos. 3-8. The ground taken by Mr. Bhatra is that after pronouncement of the decision in the review petition, the applicant herein had moved the file from the Divisional Office, Tezpur to the Regional Office, Guwahati and in the process, a delay of 119 days had occurred and the same is not intentional, rather, it is circumstantial and under such circumstances, Mr. Bhatra has contended to allow this application. 4. Per contra, Mr. Chamaria, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1 submits that he has no objection in the event of condoning the delay of 119 days. However, he submits that the applicant herein has not been depositing the amount which was awarded by the Tribunal, even though, there was a clear cut direction to deposit the same within a period of 30 days, instead he has been pursuing time barred remedies and as such, to balance the equity, he has contended to impose some cost upon the applicant. 5. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for both the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the application and the documents placed on record and also perused the paragraph Nos. 3-8. Page No.# 5/5 6. It appears that the delay of 119 days has been sufficiently explained and accordingly, the same stands condoned. Since, the delay is explained and the explanation is found to be satisfactory, the question of imposing the cost does not arise. 7. In view of the order passed in this interlocutory application, the Registry shall register the connected appeal and list the same before the Court, as soon as practicable. JUDGE Comparing Assistant