Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010146982025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/2301/2025 ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. A CENTRAL GOVT. UNDERTAKING HAVING ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT GUWAHATI, G.S. ROAD, ULUBARI, GUWAHATI-781007 REP. BY THE MANAGER, GAUHATI REGIONAL OFFICE, UUBARI, GUWAHATI-781007. VERSUS PRIYANKA DAS AND 3 ORS. D/O. HARLAL DAS 2:PRASENJIT DAS S/O. HARLAL DAS 3:HARLAL DAS S/O. LT. RAMLAL DAS ALL ARE R/O. VILL.- WARD NO. 4 LAKHIPUR TOWN P/O. AND P/S. LAKHIPUR DIST. GOALPARA ASSAM PIN-783129. 4:SAHANUR PODDAR S/O. ABDUR RAHIM PODDAR VILL.- BAGULAMARI PART-I P/O. ALOMGANJ PS/ GAURIPUR DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-78333 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S P SHARMA, MS. C MOZUMDAR,MS. R D MOZUMDAR Page No.# 2/3 Advocate for the Respondent : MR. A R AGARWALA (R-1,3), MR ADITYA AGARWALA (R-1,3) BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 12.06.2026 Heard Ms. R.D. Mozumdar, learned counsel for the applicant and also heard Mr. Aditya Agarwala, learned counsel for respondent/opposite party Nos.1—3. Office note dated 10.06.2026 indicates that service upon the respondent No.4 stands completed. This application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 is preferred by the applicant for condonation of delay of 96 days in preferreing the connected MAC appeal against the judgment and order dated 21.12.2024, passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhubri, in MAC Case No.77/2022(D). Ms. Mozumdar submits that though the judgment and order was passed on 21.12.2024, yet, the appeal could not be filed in time, as the applicant herein had to obtain legal opinion from the counsel of the High Court and in the process there was some delay and there was also some delay on her part, as she could not prepare the appeal memo on account of her pre-occupation with mediation training organized by the MCPC, Supreme Court of India and the delay is not intentional and under such circumstances, she has contended to condone the delay and to admit the appeal. Mr. Agarwala, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos.1—3 submits that he has no objection. Accordingly, taking note of the submission of learned counsel for both the parties and also in view of the explanation so put forwarded in paragraph Nos.3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, Page No.# 3/3 this Court is of the view that the delay of 96 days in preferring the connected appeal is sufficiently explained and accordingly, the same stands condoned. Now, the Registry will proceed to register and number the appeal and list the same before the Court as soon as practicable reflecting the names of the learned counsel for the respondents in the cause list. Comparing Assistant Sd/- Robin Phukan JUDGE