Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010221942018 2025:GAU-AS:14457 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/3578/2018 SMTI ADITI ROY AND ANR W/O SRI GAJEN CH. ROY RESIDENT OF VILL AND PO LALABORI, PS MORNOI, DIST GOALPARA, ASSAM 2: SRI GAJEN CH. ROY S/O LATE GOPAL CH. ROY RESIDENT OF VILL AND PO LALABORI PS MORNOI DIST GOALPARA ASSA VERSUS THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER FUTURE GENERALI INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD AND 2 ORS CHIRISTAIN BASTI , GS ROAD, GUWAHATI 781005, ASSAM 2:ZAKIR HUSSAIN S/O HAIDAR ALI RESIDENT OF CLASSIC ENCLAVE FLAT 4C MRD ROAD NEW GUWAHATI PO NEW GUWAHATI DIST KAMRUP ASSAM 3:AMINUDDIN HAZARIKA S/O MAINUDDIN HAZARIKA RESIDENT OF VILL NO 1 JALAH PO AND PS CHANGSARI DIST KARMUP R ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H DAS, MS. U HAZARIKA,MR. B C DEKA Advocate for the Respondent : MR. K BHATTACHARJEE, MR. K BHATTACHARJEE,MS B Page No.# 2/3 TALUKDAR,MS B TALUKDAR,MR. M HAQUE,MS B KASSHYAP,MR. B KAKATI,MR. U K DUTTA,MR. A J SAIKIA BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER 29.10.2025 Heard Mr. H. Das, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. A. J. Saikia, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. K. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. 2. This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed with a prayer for condonation of delay of 297 days in preferring the connected appeal against the judgment and order dated 18.08.2017 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Goalpara in MAC Case No. 89/2015. 3. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the applicant, submits that the grounds for the delay in filing the connected appeal have been explained in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the delay condonation petition. 4. Upon 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 period. Moreover, the respondents have raised no objection to the condonation of delay. 5. 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 Page No.# 3/3 297 days in preferring the connected appeal stands condoned. 6. The Interlocutory Application stands disposed of in terms above. JUDGE Comparing Assistant