Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010046952024 2025:GAU-AS:1809 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/2793/2024 ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD A CENTRAL GOVT. UNDERTAKING HAVING ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT GUWAHATI, G.S. ROAD, ULUBARI, GUWAHATI-781007 REP. BY THE DEPUTY MANAGER, GAUHATI REGIONAL OFFICE, ULUBARI, GUWAHATI- 781007. VERSUS BABUL GAWALA @ BABLU ANR 2 ORS S/O. PATRA GAWALA 2:SRI. CHAU DANGRI @ SAHU S/O. LT. RAGHU DANGRI BOTH ARE RESIDENT OF VILL. AMARIBARI T.E. P/O. AND P/S. RANGAPARA DIST. SONITPUR ASSAM PIN-784101 3:SRI. RISHI PAL SINGH TANWAR S/O. SUMER SINGH @ S.S TANWAR R/O. BARAI T.E. P/O. AND P/S. HELEM DIST. BISWANATH CHARIALI ASSAM PIN-78417 Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. R D MOZUMDAR, MS. C MOZUMDAR,MR. S P SHARMA Advocate for the Respondent : MR. A T SARKAR, MR A HUSSAIN,MR S HUSSAIN,FOR CAVEATOR Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER 20.02.2025 Heard learned counsel, Ms R D Mozumdar, for the applicant/appellant-insurer and learned counsel, Mr A T Sarkar, for the respondent No. 1/claimant. 2. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are not represented today. 3. Office Note indicates that notice issued to the respondent No. 2 was received by his wife, who gave her thumb impression, whereas, respondent No. 3 resigned from the Tea Estate. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the applicant/appellant that as the delay is only related to the quantum of compensation the appearance and submission on behalf of the claimant will suffice. Further, it is submitted on behalf of the applicant/appellant that the delay was not the result of any negligence on the part of the insurer. The order/ award impugned by the appellant in connection with MAC Case No. 2082/2017, was passed on 12.10.2023. The legal opinion of the dealing counsel was received by the appellant on 30.10.2023, but the relevant documents were not furnished to the appellant. Finally, the copies of the relevant documents were furnished to the appellant on 10.01.2024. Thereby, this was the result of the delay. 5. Objection was filed by the respondent No. 1/claimant, relating to the condonation of delay. 6. I have considered the submissions at the Bar with circumspection. Page No.# 3/3 7. It appears that there was no negligence on the part of the appellant. Sufficient grounds have been shown. 8. It appears that delay may be condoned. 9. Considering all aspects, the delay of 50 days in preferring the appeal, is hereby condoned. 10. In terms of the above observations, this interlocutory application, under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, is disposed of. 11. Registry to register the connected appeal as soon as possible within one week, and list the matter, thereafter. JUDGE Comparing Assistant