Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010273032024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/2419/2024 CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AND HEAD OFFICE AT DARE HOUSE 2ND FLOOR NO. 2 N.S.C. BOSE ROAD CHENNAI- 600001 AND ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT AASTHA PLAZA 4TH FLOOR OPPOSITE TO S.B. DEORAH COLLEGE G.S. ROAD GUWAHATI. VERSUS PINKY @ PINKI DAS AND 4 ORS. W/O LATE NANTU DAS R/O CHOKONIDHARA BURA NAMGHAR P.S.- JORHAT DIST.- JORHAT ASSAM PIN- 785001. 2:PROTIM DAS S/O LATE NANTU DAS R/O CHOKONIDHARA BURA NAMGHAR P.S.- JORHAT DIST.- JORHAT ASSAM PIN- 785001. (BEING MINOR REP. BY THE LEGAL GUARDIAN MOTHER I.E. RES. NO. 1). Page No.# 2/3 3:RITUPAN DAS S/O LATE NANTU DAS R/O CHOKONIDHARA BURA NAMGHAR P.S.- JORHAT DIST.- JORHAT ASSAM PIN- 785001. (BEING MINOR REP. BY THE LEGAL GUARDIAN MOTHER I.E. RES. NO. 1). 4:BANAMALI NATH S/O LILA NATH R/O KAKIGAON P.S.- KAKI DIST.- HOJAI ASSAM. 5:PRODIP BORA S/O TAKESWAR BORA R/O NO. 2 KAKI CHARIALI P.S.- KAKI DIST.- HOJAI ASSAM PIN- 782435. ------------ Advocate for : MR. R GOSWAMI Advocate for : MR. A BORUA (R-1 2 3) appearing for PINKY @ PINKI DAS AND 4 ORS. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 08.01.2025 1. Heard Ms. P. Borthakur, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. A. Borua, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 who is the claimant. Page No.# 3/3 2. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that since the connected appeal is filed regarding challenging the quantum of the compensation awarded, hence, the presence of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 may not be necessary and prays for striking out their names. 3. The prayer is allowed. 4. This application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, read with proviso to Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed for condoning the delay of 34 days. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents does not oppose the prayer for condonation of delay made by the applicant. 6. In view of the fact that the respondent has conceded to the application for condonation of delay as well as in view of the grounds shown by the applicant for preferring the connected appeal beyond 34 days from the period of limitation, this Court is of considered opinion that the delay has been sufficiently explained and, therefore, the prayer is allowed the and the said delay is condoned. 7. This interlocutory application is accordingly disposed of. 8. The connected MAC Appeal be registered and list it before the Court again on 22nd of January, 2025. JUDGE Comparing Assistant