Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010182202024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/2739/2024 THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 3 MIDDLETON STREET, KOLKATA- 700071 AND REGIONAL AT G.S. ROAD, BHANGAGARH, GHY-5, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, GUWAHATI. VERSUS UTPAL DUTTA AND 2 ORS S/O. LT. NAREN DUTTA @ NARENDRA DUTTA, VILL- HAIBARGAON, LACHIT NAGAR, P.S. NAGAON, DIST. NAGAON, ASSAM, PIN-782002 2:RAJESH DAS S/O. LT. PREMESWAR DAS VILL. MILANOUR P/S. NAGAON DIST. NAGAON ASSAM PIN-781337 3:HRISHIKESH DAS S/O. SRI. RAJESH DAS VILL. MILANPUR P/S. NAGAON DIST. NAGAON ASSAM PIN-78133 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P J BARMAN, MS R TADO Advocate for the Respondent : MR D MONDAL (R-1), Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 04.08.2025 Heard Mr. P.J. Barman, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. D. Mondal, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1. 2. Mr. Barman, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the opposite party Nos. 2 & 3 are the driver and owner of the offending vehicle and they did not contest the claim petition before the learned Tribunal and as such, their names may be struck off from the array of opposite parties of this application. 3. Accordingly, taking note of the submission of learned counsel for the applicant, the name of opposite party Nos. 2 & 3 stands struck off from the array of opposite parites this application at the cost and risk of the applicant. 4. The present interlocutory application is preferred by the applicant, for condoning the delay of 41 days in preferring the connected appeal, against the judgment and award dated 10.04.2024, passed by the learned Member, MACT, Nagaon, in MAC Case No. 184/2019. 5. It is to be noted here that vide impugned judgment and award dated 10.04.2024, the learned Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs. 6,16,936/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of award till payment. 6. Mr. Barman submits that the delay of 41 days in preferring the connected appeal is explained in paragraph Nos. 2 – 7 of the petition and that the delay is not intentional, rather it is circumstantial. Mr. Barman further submits that the applicant has an arguable point and therefore, it is contended to allow this application. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Mondal, learned counsel for the opposite party No. Page No.# 3/3 1 submits that since there is only 41 days of delay, he has no objection in the event of allowing this application. 8. Taking note of the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and also considering the explanation so forwarded in the statements and averments made in the paragraph Nos. 2 – 7 of the application, this court is inclined to condone the said delay. 9. Accordingly, the same stands condoned. 10. In terms of above, this I.A. stands disposed of. 11. Now, the registry shall register the connected appeal and list the same before the court as soon as practicable. JUDGE Comparing Assistant