Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010264882025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/1716/2024 THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD HAVING ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT GOGREJ BUILDING ULLUBARI GHY- 07 REP. BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER. VERSUS MOTIBUR RAHMAN AND 7 ORS. S/O LATE H.M MUJIBUR RAHMAN R/O RUPAI SIDING (NEAR MASJID) P.O.- RUPAI P.S.- DOOMDOOMA DIST.- TINSUKIA ASSAM. 2:KAWAR SHIRIN D/O LATE H.M MUJIBUR RAHMAN R/O RUPAI SIDING (NEAR MASJID) P.O.- RUPAI P.S.- DOOMDOOMA DIST.- TINSUKIA ASSAM. 3:TOMSON BEJ BARUAH S/O PURNA NANDA BARUAH R/O RUPBON DOOMDOOMA P.O. AND P.S.- DOOMDOOMA DIST.- TINSUKIA ASSAM. Page No.# 2/5 4:JOON BORUAH S/O CHITRA BORUAH R/O ALUPATTY DOOMDOOMA P.O. AND P.S.- DOOMDOOMA DIST.- TINSUKIA ASSAM. 5:NASIRRUDDIN AHMED @ NASIR AHMED S/O MD. JAMALUDDIN AHMED R/O DHAN NAGAR RUPAI SIDING Q.O- RUPAI P.S.- DOOMDOOMA. 6:BIJAY KUMAR SAH S/O RAM BHAGAT SAH R/O DOOMDOOMA P.O.- HANSAR P.S.- DOOMDOOMA. 7:THE MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED HAVING ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE AT A.T. ROAD OPPOSITE A.S.T.C BUS STAND TINSUKIA Q.O. P.S. AND DIST.- TINSUKIA ASSAM. 8:MOJUR RAHMAN S/O LATE H.M MUJIBUR RAHMAN R.O RUPAI P.S.- DOOMDOOMA DIST.- TINSUKIA ASSAM. ------------ Advocate for : MR. J KALITA Advocate for : MR. P J BARMAN (R-7) appearing for MOTIBUR RAHMAN AND 7 ORS. Linked Case : THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Page No.# 3/5 VERSUS MOTIBUR RAHMAN AND 7 ORS A ------------ Advocate for : MR. J KALITA Advocate for : appearing for MOTIBUR RAHMAN AND 7 ORS A BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI ORDER 11.02.2026 Heard Mr. J. Kalita, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/claimant Nos.1 & 2. Mr. P.J. Barman, learned counsel appears for the respondent No.7/Insurance Company. 2. The instant application is filed for condoning the delay of 189 days in preferring the connected MAC Appeal against the judgment and order dated 22.08.2023, passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tinsukia in MAC Case No.38/2015. 3. The grounds for the delay reads as under- “5. That the applicant respectfully begs to state that although the impugned judgment was passed on 22/8/2023 however due to over sight of the dealing advocate of the court below it was come the knowledge of Page No.# 4/5 the applicant on 5/2/2024 when the dealing advocate informed the status of the case. That immediately after coming to know about the judgment the applocant advised the dealing advocate to get sertified copy of all the documents. Accordingly on 6/2/2024 the application for certified copy was filed and copy was furnished on 21/2/2024. 6. That the applicant respectfully begs to state that although certified copy of documents was sent on 28/2/2024, however National Lokadalat was scheduled on 9/3/2024 and the applicant was with hectic schedule of pre seating for settlement and therefore somehow its out of his mind. That after Nationa Lok Adalat being over the applicant sent the documents to his higher authorities for its opinion. Accordingly it took few days time in getting the reply from the head office and finally its received the file with approval for preferring appeal taking opinion from the panel advocate of the High court. But because of the back to back National Lokadalat scheduled by the authority, the applicant somehow skipped the file in between as the second National Lokadalat was scheduled on 11/5/2024. There after the applicant processed the file and sought opinion of two panel advocate and finally with the approval of the higher authorities it has been decided to prefer the appeal. That although the applicant make endeavour to file the appeal within the time prescribed however because of receiving the file lately as well as hectic schedule of back to back National Lokadalat, the appeal could not be preferred in time and as such there is a delay of 189 days in preferring the appeal. 7. That the applicant respectfully begs to state that they have preferred the appeal in some strong grounds and therefore it is very much necessary to adjudicate the issues involved in the appeal by this Hon'ble court as the Ld. Trial court has overlooked the verious vital aspect as held by the Hon'ble Apex court regarding disposal of a motor accident claim. Therefore if the Hon'ble court does not condone the delays then the applicant company has to suffer huge financial loss as directed by the Ld. Tribunal.” Page No.# 5/5 4. The learned counsels appearing for the respondents have not seriously opposed to the prayer for condonation. 5. On reading of the aforesaid grounds for delay, it appears that due to want of knowledge of the impugned judgment and order and for the time taken for preferring the appeal, the aforesaid delay of 189 days had occurred. The explanation given appears to be bonafide and sufficient for the delay to be condoned. 6. Accordingly, the delay of 189 days is condoned. 7. Registry to register the connected appeal and list the same. 8. The I.A. stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant