Page No.# 1/3 GAHC040018952025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : IA(C)/281/2025 Smti kamala Sonar Wife of Late Deepak Sonar, presently residing at Nirjuli, PO and PS Nirjuli, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. 791110 VERSUS The United India Insurance Company Ltd and 2 Ors represented by its Divisional Manager having its Divisional Office at MC Road near Tezpur Sadar Policed Station, PO and PS Tezpur, Sonitpur District, Assam. 2:Sita Saja Age: 0 Occupation : Son of Shri Ani Saja resident of Seppa Town PO and PS Seppa East Kameng District Arunachal Pradesh. 3:M/s PRL Project Private Limited Age: 0 Occupation : INWINEX Tower 3rd Floor Hyderabad Madhya Pradesh India Advocate for the Petitioner : Nannu Yubi, Michi Tara Advocate for the Respondent : Uttam Deka, Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER 24.11.2025 Heard Mr. M. Tara, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. U. Deka, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Mr. Tara, learned counsel for the applicant, submits that respondent Nos. 2 and 3, being the driver and owner of the vehicle, are not necessary parties for the purpose of disposal of this interlocutory application as the ground of challenge is on quantum against the Insurance Company, and accordingly he prays for striking off the names of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 from the cause title. 3. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant, this Court finds it fit to strike off the names of the aforesaid respondent Nos. 2 and 3 from the cause title at the risk of the learned counsel for the applicant. Accordingly, the Registry is hereby directed to strike off the names of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 from the cause title. 4. This application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 has been filed with a prayer for condonation of delay of 28 days in preferring the connected appeal against the judgment and award dated 22.07.2025 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Yupia, in MAC Case No. 05/2023. 5. Mr. Tara, learned counsel for the applicant, submits that the grounds for the delay in filing the connected appeal have been explained in paragraph 3 of the delay condonation petition. 6. Considering the explanations provided in the aforesaid paragraphs, this Court is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the stipulated time. Moreover, the respondent has raised no objection to the condonation of delay. Page No.# 3/3 7. In view of the above, and in the interest of justice, the interlocutory application for condonation of delay is hereby allowed. Accordingly, the delay of 28 days in preferring the connected appeal stands condoned. 8. The Registry is directed to register the connected Appeal. 9. In this regard, Mr. Tara, learned counsel for the applicant, submits that there is a typographical error in the connected appeal filed under Section 173 of the M.V. Act, 1988, in respect of the date of the judgment and award, and therefore he prays for correction of the same. 10. Prayer is allowed. 11. The Registry is directed to do the needful and to list the connected appeal after 4 (four) weeks. 12. In terms of above, this Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant