Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 2951 (GAU)

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. HALIMA KHATUN AND 2 ORS.

I.A.(Civil)/3558/2025 · 2026-03-29

Mridul Kumar Kalita

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/2 GAHC010200612025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/3558/2025 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 24, WHITES ROAD, CHENNAI AND ONE OF THE REGIONAL OFFICE AT CHIBBAR HOUSE , GS ROAD, GUWAHATI, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE GUWAHATI (INSURER OF THE VEHICLE NO AS 25 AC 2726 VERSUS HALIMA KHATUN AND 2 ORS. WIFE OF LATE HANIF ALI, R/O KALAHIKASH , BOKO, KAMRUP, ASSAM, (CLAIMANT IN MAC CASE NO 2788/2016 2:RAJU AHMED SON OF GULAM ALI R/O TAMULDI BOKO KAMRUP ASSAM(OWNER OF THE VEHICLE NO AS 25 AC 2726 AND OPP PART NO 1 MAC CASE NO 2788/2016 3:JAFAR ALI SON OF LATE MUNNAP ALI R/O VILLAGE KOTABARI GORCHUCK GUWAHATI KAMRUP METRO ASSAM DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE NO AS 25 AC 2726 AND OPP PARTY NO 2 IN MAC CASE NO 2788/201 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P J BARMAN, MS R TADO Advocate for the Respondent : MR. R GOSWAMI(R1), B DUTTA(R1) Page No.# 2/2 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 30.03.2026 1. Heard Ms. R. Tado, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Ms. B. Dutta, learned counsel for the claimant/respondent No. 1. 2. This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has been filed by the applicant/Insurance Company, namely, United India Insurance Company Limited praying for condonation of delay of 39 days in preferring the connected MAC appeal whereby the judgment and order dated 22.04.2025, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 2, Kamrup(M), in MAC Case No. 2788/2016 has been impugned. 3. Ms. B. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1/claimant submits that considering the grounds stated in the instant interlocutory application, she does not have any objection if the delay is condoned. 4. Since, the claimant is not opposing the instant interlocutory application, the notice to other respondents is hereby waived. 5. After considering the grounds stated in this interlocutory application, this court is of considered opinion that the applicant was prevented from approaching this court within the prescribed period of limitation due to sufficient cause. Accordingly, the delay of 39 days in preferring the connected appeal is hereby condoned and this interlocutory application is accordingly allowed. 6. The Registry is directed to register the connected MAC appeal and list the same for admission after a week on a date to be fixed by it. JUDGE Comparing Assistant