BABITA DEKA AND ANR v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD AND 2 ORS
I.A.(Civil)/149/2024 · 2025-04-24
Budi Habung
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 20208 (GAU) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 20208 (GAU) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010227272023
2025:GAU-AS:5027
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/149/2024 BABITA DEKA AND ANR W/O LATE KRISHNA DEKA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE FOREST GATE, NOONMATI, PS NOONMATI, DIST KAMRUP M ASSAM 2: GARIMA DEKA D/O LATE KRISHNA DEKA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE FOREST GATE NOONMATI PS NOONMATI DIST KAMRUP M ASSAM TO BE REP. BY PET. NO. VERSUS ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD AND 2 ORS HAVING ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT GS ROAD, ULUBARI, GUWAHATI 07 REPRESENTED BY THE REGIONAL MANAGER 2:SRI BISWAJIT SAHA S/O SRI MANORANJAN SAHA RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 2 NOONMATI PS NOONMATI DIST KAMRUP M ASSAM 3:MD. AMIR ALI S/O A. HAMID RESIDENT OF HOUSE N. 10 MAJID PATH PS NOONMATI DIST KAMRUP ASSA
Page No.# 2/3 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR D MONDAL, MR R.D. BHUYAN Advocate for the Respondent : MS L SHARMA (R-1),
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER Date : 25-04-2025 Mr. D. Mondal, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant submits that he has challenged the impugned order for enhancement of quantum against the Insurance Company and, therefore, the presence of the respondent nos. 2 and 3, being the owner and driver of the offending vehicle may not be required and, therefore, prays for striking off the names of the respondent nos. 2 and 3. As prayed for, the names of respondent nos. 2 and 3 are struck off from the cause title at the risk of the applicant/appellant. Ms. L. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent is also present. This is an application filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condoning the delay of 46 days in filing the connected appeal. The ground for delay in not preferring the connected appeal in time has been explained in paragraph 2 of the petition. Having gone through the explanation given by the applicant in paragraph 2 of the petition, this Court is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by a sufficient cause in not preferring the connected appeal in time. Moreover, Ms. L. Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Page No.# 3/3 respondent/ Insurance company has no objection for condonation of the delay. In view of the above, the delay of 46 days is hereby condoned.
The Registry is directed to register the connected appeal and list if for admission. With the above, this IA stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant