Page No.# 1/7 GAHC020005722024 2025:GAU-NL:83 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/147/2024 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD AND ANR ITANAGAR BRANCH NEAR UCO BANK, NH-15 P.O. BANDARDEWA DIST- PAPUMPARE, ARUNACHAL PRADESH-791123 2: THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD DIMAPUR NAGALAND-78711 VERSUS SMTI. MAYA HAZARIKA AND 3 ORS WIFE OF SHRI RUPEN HAZARIKA PERMANENT R/O CHAWKHAM VILLAGE P.O. BORDOLONI P.S. GOGAMUKH DIST- DHEMAJI, ASSAM 2:MISS MAYUR TRISHNA HAZARIKA DAUGHTER OF SHRI RUPEN HAZARIKA UNMARRIED SISTER OF THE DECEASED. PERMANENT R/O CHAWKHAM VILLAGE P.O. BORDOLONI P.S. GOGAMUKH DIST- DHEMAJI ASSAM 3:M/S M.M. ENTERPRISE VILLAGE- BANSKOTA P.O. AND P.S. PASIGHAT DIST- EAST SIANG ARUNACHAL PRADESH PIN-791102 OWNER OF MOTORCYCLE B/R NO. AR 09 B 5879 Page No.# 2/7 4:SHRI DILIP PEGU SON OF BAPUTI PEGU VILLAGE- PANBARI P.O. OANBARI DIST- LAKHIMPUR ASSAM DRIVER OF MOTORCYCLE B/R NO AR 09 B 587 Advocate for the Petitioner : PFOSEKHO PFOTTE, Advocate for the Respondent : , Linked Case : MACApp./5/2024 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD AND ANR ITANAGAR BRANCH NEAR UCO BANK NH-15 P.O. BANDARDEWA DIST- PAPUMPARE ARUNACHAL PRADESH-791123 2: THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD DIMAPUR NAGALAND-787112 VERSUS SMTI. MAYA HAZARIKA AND 3 ORS WIFE OF SHRI RUPEN HAZARIKA PERMANENT R/O CHAWKHAM VILLAGE P.O. BORDOLONI P.S. GOGAMUKH DIST- DHEMAJI ASSAM 2:MISS MAYUR TRISHNA HAZARIKA DAUGHTER OF SHRI RUPEN HAZARIKA UNMARRIED SISTER OF THE DECEASED. PERMANENT R/O CHAWKHAM VILLAGE P.O. BORDOLONI P.S. GOGAMUKH DIST- DHEMAJI ASSAM 3:M/S M.M. ENTERPRISE Page No.# 3/7 VILLAGE- BANSKOTA P.O. AND P.S. PASIGHAT DIST- EAST SIANG ARUNACHAL PRADESH PIN-791102 OWNER OF MOTORCYCLE B/R NO. AR 09 B 5879 4:SHRI DILIP PEGU SON OF BAPUTI PEGU VILLAGE- PANBARI P.O. OANBARI DIST- LAKHIMPUR ASSAM DRIVER OF MOTORCYCLE B/R NO AR 09 B 5879 ------------ Advocate for : PFOSEKHO PFOTTE Advocate for : IMTIWAPANG appearing for SMTI. MAYA HAZARIKA AND 3 ORS BEFORE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER O R D E R 10.03.2025 Heard Mr. Medo Vero, learned counsel for the appellant/insurer and Mr. B. N. Sarmah, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2. 2. This application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 has been filed by the appellants/insurer seeking condonation of delay of 490 (Four hundred and ninety) days in preferring the accompanying Mac Appeal/5/2024. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/insurer, Mr. Medo Vero has submitted that the main grounds for the delay have been set out at paragraph-7 in the present application. At paragraph-7 the Page No.# 4/7 insurer/appellants has stated that a copy of the impugned Judgment and Order dated 17.05.2023 was received by the Branch manager which was forwarded to the Panel Advocate and the Zonal Office. That by Letter dated 22.01.2024 the Panel Advocate had forwarded his legal opinion addressed to the Claims Department at the Dibrugarh Office of the applicants which was received by the Office at Dimapur and forwarded on 24.01.2024 to the applicants’ office at Dibrugarh which was received on 29.01.2024. The Panel Advocate thereafter advised the applicants to approach the Hon’ble High Court by way of an appeal. 4. Subsequently, the Claims Department forwarded the Original Claim File to the Manager of the Legal Hub for doing the needful. The applicant sought advice from the Manager Legal Hub, Guwahati by forwarding the Original Claim File. By email dated 07.02.2024 the Assistant Manager, Regional Office Guwahati sought information in respect of the instant case against the Judgment and Order dated 17.05.2023 from their advocate at Guwahati. On 14.02.2024, the applicants’ Chief Regional Manager at the Regional Office, Guwahati received detailed legal opinion dated 12.02.2024 for preferring an appeal before the High Court and had also advised that the appeal should be accompanied by an application for condonation of delay. Thereafter, by an email dated 21.02.2024, the Regional Office, Guwahati forwarded the file along with the recommendation for filing an appeal to the Dibrugarh CCH (Suit) for further compliance which was received by the same on 26.02.2024, That by Letter dated 26.02.2024, the Claims Department, Dibrugarh forwarded the Original Claim File of MACT Case No. 2/2019 Tuensang to the Office of the Branch Manager, Dimapur for doing the needful. Thereafter, on Page No.# 5/7 26.02.2024, the Dibrugarh Legal Hub communicated to the Panel Advocate at the High Court Kohima Bench stating that the office shall be sending the file and the appointment letter for doing the needful. Thus, by a Letter dated 06.03.2024, the Divisional Office at Dimapur forwarded the Original Claim File of MACT Case No. 2/2019 to the In-Charge at Kohima Micro Office for handing over the same to the Panel Advocate at Kohima. 5. That the learned counsel for the applicant also submits that on 07.03.2024, the Panel Advocate received the Original Claim File from the Kohima Micro Office. However, the Panel Advocate and his family had to leave Kohima Town from 07.03.2024 till 26.03.21024 due to Quit Notice served to his community to leave the jurisdiction of Kohima Town. Upon return on 27.03.2024, the Panel Advocate was disturbed and traumatized for a long time and only after settling down, the Panel Advocate started preparing this application along with the accompanying appeal memo. And finally, this application was filed on 17.09.2024 and therefore, there is a delay of 490 days in preferring the instant application and the applicants are praying for condonation of delay of 490 days in preferring the connected MAC Appeal. 6. Opposing the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicants, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants, Mr. B.N. Sarmah has pointed out that there is no explanation at all for a delay of 249 days in between the date of judgment, i.e. 17.05.2023 till the legal opinion was sent on 22.01.2024. He has also stated that the entire delay was due to the lethargy and inaction of the applicants and that the petition filed by the applicants is devoid of proper explanation for the Page No.# 6/7 delay. He has submitted that the delay was due to wilful negligence and is totally perverse and, therefore, the delay should not be condoned. He has relied on the case of the following judgments: i) S. Ganesharju (Dead) Through Lrs. And Others Versus Narsamma (Dead) Through Lrs. reported in (2013) 11 SCC 341 at paragraph- 10. ii) State of Assam & Others Versus Gita Rani Kalita & Another reported in 2017 (2) GLT 1190 (DB) at paragraph- 7, 8, 9 and 10. iii) ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Rupnath Brahma Choudhury & Another reported in 2017 (2) GLT 487 at paragraph- 6. iv) Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Bombay Versus Amateur Riders Club, Bombay reported in 1994 Supp. (2) SCC 603 at paragraph- 3 and 4. In view of the above, settled position of law, the learned counsel for the respondents has prayed that the present application may be dismissed and the delay should not condoned. 7. Having considered the submissions of the counsels for the parties and upon going through the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, this Court is of the view that the entire explanation given by the applicant is based on administrative formalities and movement of files from table to table which are not valid grounds in view of the advancement of modern technology which allows speedy communication even from far flung areas. This Court has also observed that there is no explanation at all with regards to 249 days in between the Judgment dated 17.05.2023 and the Page No.# 7/7 Letter dated 22.01.2024 which the Panel Advocate had written to the Claims Department Office forwarding his legal opinion. 8. This Court is of the view that the applicants have been negligent and the delay in filing the connected appeal has not been explained satisfactorily and no sufficient cause has been shown. In the result, the I.A.(Civil)/47/2024 is dismissed. The petition stands disposed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant