Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010083322024 2025:GAU-AS:14014 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/1787/2024 ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. (A CENTRAL GOVT. UNDERTAKING) HAVING ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT GUWAHATI, G.S. ROAD, ULUBARI, GUWAHATI- 781007, REP. BY THE DEPUTY MANAGER, GAUHATI REGIONAL OFFICE, ULUBARI, GUWAHATI- 781007. VERSUS KHUDEJA BEGUM AND 4 ORS. W/O ABDUL MANAF, VILL.- VALLEY VIEW, DON BOSCO, NAMGHAR COLONY, P.O. AND P.S.- DIPHU, DIST.- KARBI ANGLONG, ASSAM, PIN- 782460. 2:RESHMILA BEGUM D/O ABDUL MANAF VILL.- VALLEY VIEW DON BOSCO NAMGHAR COLONY P.O. AND P.S.- DIPHU DIST.- KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM PIN- 782460. (REP. BY OPPOSITE PARTY NO. 1). 3:ABDUL MANNAF S/O LATE SULEMAN ALI VILL.- VALLEY VIEW DON BOSCO NAMGHAR COLONY P.O. AND P.S.- DIPHU Page No.# 2/5 DIST.- KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM PIN- 782460. (REP. BY OPPOSITE PARTY NO. 1). 4:YAKUB ALI S/O ENUSH ALI C/O Z. ZAMAL OF HOUSE NO. 43 ANANDA NAGAR CHRISTIAN BASTI P.O. AND P.S.- DISPUR DIST.- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM PIN- 781005. 5:GOVINDA SARKAR S/O SRI SANTI SARKAR VILL.- BIRLA GATE 4TH MILE P.O. AND P.S.- DIPHU DIST.- KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM PIN- 782460 Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. R D MOZUMDAR, MR. S P SHARMA,MS. C MOZUMDAR Advocate for the Respondent : , Linked Case : ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD VERSUS SRIMATI KHUDEJA BEGUM AND 4 ORS B ------------ Page No.# 3/5 Advocate for : MS. R D MOZUMDAR Advocate for : appearing for SRIMATI KHUDEJA BEGUM AND 4 ORS B BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI ORDER 22.10.2025 Heard Ms. R D Mozumdar, learned counsel for the applicant. None appeared for the respondents on call. This application is filed under Section 173 of the M.V. Act read with Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, seeking condonation of delay of 17 days in filing the connected appeal against the judgment and award dated 06.01.2024 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 2, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati in M.A.C. Case No. 2439/2017. Pertinent that since the service of notice on the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 was returned un-served with the endorsement ‘addressee left’ , this Court on 25.04.2025 allowed the prayer of the learned counsel for the applicant to cause service upon the aforesaid respondents by substituted mode of paper publication. The affidavit filed on 28.07.2025 by the applicant indicates that notice was published in ‘Dainik Assam’ on 12.07.2025. On perusal of the notice as published in the aforesaid newspaper, it appears that despite the respondents being intimated as regards the next date of hearing, there is Page No.# 4/5 no representation on behalf of the respondents till date. Be that as it may, it appears that the issue involved in the instant interlocutory application is condonation of delay of 17 days. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, this Court proceeds to consider the prayer made in the instant interlocutory application ex-parte. The grounds of delay as stated in the instant interlocutory application read as under – “3. That the judgment was passed on 06.01.2024 and the dealing counsel provided the legal opinion vide letter dated 17.01.2024 after 11 days of passing of the judgment to the Legal Hub. But the dealing counsel had not provided the copies of evidence adduced in the case along with the copies of exhibited documents. Thus, a request for the copies was made to the dealing counsel. The dealing counsel could provide the documents only on 19.03.2024. 4. That as it was fond that the judgment was not as per the settled proposition of law. In the statute there is no provision for pay and recovery. The note with observations and recommendations of the Legal Hub was prepared and sent to the Office of RM Legal. 5. That thereafter the file was put up before the competent authority for approval for filing appeal on 05.04.2024 and approval was given on the same day. 6. That thereafter the file was prepared and handed over to the chamber of counsel on 10.04.2024 to prefer the appeal. The appeal was filed on 23.04.2024 on receipt of the cheque for statutory deposit. In the process there occurred a delay of 17 days. 7. That the applicant is innocent and there is no willful negligence or laches on the part of the applicant in causing any delay in preferring the appeal in as much as the decision to prefer the appeal was taken on time after having knowledge of passing of the judgment.” Page No.# 5/5 Perusal of the aforesaid grounds, the same appears to be sufficient and bona fide, hence, the delay of 17 days in preferring the connected appeal stands condoned. Accordingly, the instant interlocutory application stands allowed and disposed of. Registry to register and list the connected appeal for Admission, on a date to be fixed by it. JUDGE Comparing Assistant