Page No.# 1/7 GAHC020006182025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/174/2025 ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD HAVING ITS REGISTERED ORIENTAL HOUSE A-25/27, ASAF ALI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110002 AND REGIONAL DIVISIONAL OFFICES IN SEVERAL PLACES, INCLUDING A REGIONAL OFFICE AT GUWAHATI ASSAM AND DIVISIONAL OFFICE AT DIMAPUR, IN THE STATE OF NAGALAND. VERSUS SMTI. SHILA DEY AND 3 ORS WIFE OF LT. DEPAK DEY, R/O H/NO. 617, S.P. COLONY, KUDA VILLAGE, DIMAPUR NAGALAND (REPRESENTING R/NO. 2) 2:SMTI. SHAMPA DEY DAUGHTER OF LT. DIPAK DEY RESIDENT OF H.NO. 617 S.P. COLONY KUDA VILLAGE DIMAPUR NAGALAND 3:SHRI. NIPUTO S/O SHRI KHEHOTO R/O PURANA BAZAR DIMAPUR NAGALAND (OWNER OF THE AUTO RICKSHAW BEARING REG. NO. NL07F-8806) 4:SHRI MITLESH SAHU S/O SHRI RAM SAHU C/O SHRI NIPUTO PURANA BAZAR DIMAPUR Page No.# 2/7 NAGALAND (DRIVER OF THE AUTO RICKSHAW BEARING REG. NO. NL07F-8806 Advocate for the Petitioner : KIM PIENYU, Advocate for the Respondent : , Linked Case : MACApp./21/2025 ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD HAVING ITS REGISTERED ORIENTAL HOUSE A-25/27 ASAF ALI ROAD NEW DELHI-110002 AND REGIONAL DIVISIONAL OFFICES IN SEVERAL PLACES INCLUDING A REGIONAL OFFICE AT GUWAHATI ASSAM AND DIVISIONAL OFFICE AT DIMAPUR IN THE STATE OF NAGALAND. VERSUS SMTI. SHILA DEY AND 3 ORS WIFE OF LT. DEPAK DEY R/O H/NO. 617 S.P. COLONY KUDA VILLAGE DIMAPUR NAGALAND (REPRESENTING R/NO. 2) 2:SMTI. SHAMPA DEY DAUGHTER OF LT. DIPAK DEY RESIDENT OF H.NO. 617 S.P. COLONY KUDA VILLAGE DIMAPUR NAGALAND 3:SHRI. NIPUTO S/O SHRI KHEHOTO R/O PURANA BAZAR DIMAPUR NAGALAND (OWNER OF THE AUTO RICKSHAW BEARING REG. NO. NL07F-8806) 4:SHRI MITLESH SAHU Page No.# 3/7 S/O SHRI RAM SAHU C/O SHRI NIPUTO PURANA BAZAR DIMAPUR NAGALAND (DRIVER OF THE AUTO RICKSHAW BEARING REG. NO. NL07F-8806) ------------ Advocate for : KIM PIENYU Advocate for : MEYIWABANG AO (R/ 1 & 2)) appearing for SMTI. SHILA DEY AND 3 ORS BEFORE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER ORDER Date : 21.07.2026 The instant application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has been filed praying for condonation of a delay of 430 (Four Hundred Thirty) days in filing the connected MAC Appeal against the impugned judgment and award dated 19.07.2024 passed by the learned MACT, Dimapur, Nagaland in MAC Case No. 112/2016. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Applicant, Ms. Kim Pienyu. Also heard Mr. Meyiwabang Ao, learned counsel for the Claimant/Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 3. By filing the instant application, the Applicant/Insurance Company has prayed for condonation of a delay of 430 days in filing the connected MAC Appeal. The ground taken by the Applicant is that the Appellant/Applicant has a Divisional Office at Dimapur, Nagaland and its Regional Office at Guwahati, Assam. It is stated that the Applicant has received the judgment dated 19.07.2024 through its Divisional Office at Dimapur on 22.07.2024 along with legal opinion which was received on 23.07.2024 Page No.# 4/7 and the same was forwarded to the Regional Office for approval to file the appeal on 24.07.2024 through email. The said communications have been enclosed and annexed by the Applicant as Annexures 1, 2 and 3. It is also stated that the Regional Office, Guwahati approved and recommended the filing of the appeal and the entire file in original was returned on 25.07.2024. Upon receipt of the file by the Divisional Office at Dimapur steps were taken and accordingly the Divisional Office, Dimapur appointed an empanelled counsel to file an appeal against the judgment dated 19.07.2024. However, it is stated that due to the negligence of the empanelled counsel, nothing was done thereby causing a delay of 293 days and that during the period of 293 days the Applicant had contacted the concerned empanelled counsel several times over the phone to which the counsel had assured the Applicant/Appellant that the appeal was being prepared and that it is under process. The Applicant states that in the meantime, the Claimant/Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed an Execution Case No. 3/2025 before the learned MACT, Dimapur, which the Applicant received on 02.06.2025. 4. After receiving the said order dated 28.05.2025 passed in the Execution Case No. 3/2025 on 02.06.2025, the Applicant again contacted the counsel regarding the status of the appeal. However, no response was received from the counsel regarding the appeal nor the execution case. 5. It is further submitted that the Applicant on 16.05.2025 appointed a second empanelled counsel but the second empanelled counsel also caused another delay of 97 days by giving assurances to the Company through phone, but did not file the appeal. Therefore, after 97 days the Page No.# 5/7 Applicant decided to appoint their third empanelled Counsel. 6. After the decision to engage a third empanelled counsel, the Applicants forwarded the entire claim file to the third empanelled counsel on 20.08.2025. After receiving the file, the present counsel, i.e., the third empanelled counsel, completed the process of drafting the connected MAC Appeal and forwarded the same for verification and signature on 17.09.2025 and during this process there has been a delay of 28 days and the said delay of 28 days have been caused because the counsel had some health issues. Finally, the connected appeal was filed on 22.09.2025 thereby causing a delay of 430 days. Learned counsel submits that the delay has not been caused by the inaction or negligence of the Applicants but due to the delay caused by the empanelled counsels. Learned counsel, in support of her contentions has relied on the case of Ram Kumar Gupta & Ors. v. Har Prasad & Anr., reported in (2010) 1 SCC 391. Learned counsel, therefore, prays that the delay of 430 days may be condoned. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Respondents/Claimants, Mr. Meyiwabang, submits that the claimant had filed an execution petition on 28.05.2025 and the connected MAC Appeal was filed only on 22.09.2025, much after the execution petition was filed before the Tribunal. He has also submitted that even though the Applicant has stated that the brief of the case had been given to the first empanelled counsel on 29.07.2024, the Applicant has not shown any communication between them and the first counsel and they have not pursued the matter diligently with the engaged counsel. He has also submitted that even after the second Page No.# 6/7 Empanelled Counsel was appointed on 16.05.2025, the Applicant have not made any efforts to communicate with the second engaged counsel also and there is nothing on record to show that any such communication had been made. The learned counsel, by relying on the case of Rajneesh Kumar and Another v. Ved Prakash, reported in (2024) SCC OnLine SC 3380 submits that the Applicant should not be permitted to put the entire blame on the counsels as the Applicant had been negligent. He submits that the case relied upon by the Applicant in the instant case is not applicable as the same was passed in a writ petition whereas the instant case relates to a beneficial legislation such as the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Learned counsel has also relied on the order of this Court dated 23.06.2025 passed in I.A.(Civil)/97/2024 and order dated 10.03.2025 passed in I.A.(Civil)/147/2024. Learned counsel submits that the facts and circumstances in the said interlocutory applications are similar in nature to the present case as no proper explanation has been made by the Applicant for the delay of several days after the brief was handed over to the first and second counsel for the Applicant. In view of such submissions, the learned counsel prays that the instant Application may be dismissed. 8. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and has also perused the pleadings, specifically the explanations given in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the instant application. Regarding the correspondence between the Divisional Office at Dimapur and the Regional Office at Guwahati the Applicant has annexed the relevant letters and emails in the instant application. However, as the entire explanation of the Applicant is based on the fact that the Page No.# 7/7 empanelled counsels had caused the delay, it was incumbent on the part of the Applicant to have shown the communication between the Applicant and the counsels and prove that such communications were made by the Applicant diligently and that in spite of such communications the counsels have caused the delay. However, upon going through the entire application there is nothing to show that the Applicant had communicated with either the first engaged counsel or the second engaged counsel except for one sentence stating that the counsel had been contacted over the phone. Therefore, there is no material on record to show that the Applicant had been diligently pursuing the matter with the first engaged counsel or the second engaged counsel respectively. 9. Consequently, this Court is of the view that the Applicant had not pursued the case diligently and has failed to explain the delay of 430 days satisfactorily. Therefore, the instant application is bereft of merit and is dismissed. 10. Registry shall allow the Applicant to withdraw the statutory deposit of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-five Thousand only). JUDGE Comparing Assistant