Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010086132025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/1366/2025 ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT ORIENTAL HOUSE, A 25/27, ASAF ALI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110002, AND REGIONAL OFFICE AT GUWAHATI-7, REP. BY THE REGIONAL MANAGER. VERSUS PUTULI BARMAN AND 4 ORS W/O. LT. ATUL CHANDRA BARMAN @ ATUL BARMAN. 2:PITAMBAR BARMAN S/O. LT. ATUL CHANDRA BARMAN @ ATUL BARMAN. 3:NAYANMONI BARMAN S/O. LT. ATUL CHANDRA BARMAN @ ATUL BARMAN. VILLAGE DANKINAMARI PO HAPACHARA PS AND DIST. BONGAIGAON ASSAM 4:SHAHEB ALI C/O. SOHRAB ALI VILLAGE BOGULAMARI PO LANGLA PS KALGACHIA DISTRICT BARPETA ASSAM 5:AJBAHAR HUSSAIN S/O. TAHAR ALI VILLAGE DAMUGAON PO PANBARI DISTRICT CHIRANG BTAD PIN-783391.ASSAM TEMPORARY ADDRESS DOLAIGAON NEAR LAKHI Page No.# 2/3 MANDIR BONGAIGAON ASSAM PIN-783380 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S DUTTA, Advocate for the Respondent : MR. M KHAN (R1-R3), MS J AKTAR (R1-R3),MR A K DAS (R1- R3) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 05.12.2025 1. Heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. M. Khan, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. 2. On perusal of the office note dated 25.11.2025, it appears that the notice issued to the respondent No. 5 has been served by handing over the same to the brother of the respondent No. 5. Whereas, the notice issued to the respondent No. 4 could not be served as he had expired on 13.06.2022. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant Insurance Company is aggrieved mainly with the quantum of the compensation awarded to the claimant and, therefore, the owner of the vehicle i.e., the respondent No. 4 may not be a necessary party in this interlocutory application which is filed for condoning the delay of 19 days. 4. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, notice to the respondent No. 4 in this interlocutory application is waived. 5. Further, considering the office note dated 25.11.2025, the notice Page No.# 3/3 issued to the respondent No. 5 is held to be duly served. 6. This interlocutory application has been filed under second proviso to Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has been filed by the appellant Insurance Company for condoning the delay of 19 days in preferring the connected MAC Appeal. 7. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has explained the delay in paragraph No. 4 of the instant interlocutory application and prays for condoning the said delay. 8. The learned counsel for the respondents/claimants, considering the short period of delay of 19 days as well as reasons mentioned in the application, does not raise any objection to the prayer for condoning the delay. 9. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides as well as considering the grounds stated in the paragraph No. 4 to be sufficient ground which prevented the present applicant from preferring the connected MAC Appeal within prescribed period of limitation, the delay of 19 days in preferring the connected MAC Appeal is hereby condoned and this interlocutory application is allowed. 10. The Registry is directed to register the connected MAC Appeal and list the same before the Court after a week on a date to be fixed by it. JUDGE Comparing Assistant