Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010009182025 2026:GAU-AS:701 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/262/2025 CHANDIDAS BISWAS S/O. HIRALAL BISWAS, R/O. KALAKHUWA, P/O. KALAKHUWA, P/S. LALUK, DIST. LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM. VERSUS UNIVERSAL SOMPO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AND 2 ORS 1ST FLOOR ADAM PLAZA, CHRISTIAN BASTI, GUWAHATI, G.S. ROAD, DIST. KAMRUP(M), PIN-781005. 2:MANUJ KUMAR HAZARIKA S/O. SRI. BISWAS HAZARIKA @ SURYA HAZARIKA R/O. VILL. DOLAHAT P/O. SINGRA P/S. LALUK DIST. LAKHIMPUR ASSAM. 3:SURYA HAZARIKA S/O. JULAN HAZARIKA VILL. DOLAHAT P/O. SINGRA P/S. LALUK DIST. LAKHIMPUR ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : B R DAS, MS M BHARATI Advocate for the Respondent : , Page No.# 2/4 in MACApp.Case No. 544/2025 With MACApp. Case No. 544/2025 (Filing Number) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 08.01.2026 1. Heard Mr. B.R. Das, the learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Though notices issued to respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have been duly served, however, none of them have appeared and therefore, this interlocutory application is heard ex-parte against them. 3. This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has been filed by the applicant, namely, Chandi Das Biswas praying for condonation of delay of 932 days in filing the connected MAC appeal praying for enhancement of an amount of compensation awarded to him by the judgment and award dated 23.03.2022, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Lakhimpur in MAC Case No. 25/2018, whereby, an amount of Rs. 5,56,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Fifty-Six Thousand only) with an interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization was awarded to the present applicant. Page No.# 3/4 4. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant could not file the connected appeal within the prescribed period of limitation due to some unintentional and compelling circumstances which were beyond his control. 5. It is stated that the applicant is a poor illiterate person residing in a rural area and was suffering from old age ailment/back bone pain, gastritis problem, headache and also eye problem. Due to the aforesaid reasons, he could not file the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. 6. It is further submitted that the applicant also had to look after his mentally ailing wife, Smt. Mina Biswas and was busy in her treatment and as such he was unable to prefer the connected appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. 7. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant and have gone through the materials available on record. 8. Though, an application regarding condonation of delay has to be generally dealt with liberally, however, in a case where there is huge period of delay like in the instant case, i.e. 932 days, the applicant has to satisfy the court that there is sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. 9. However, by merely stating that the applicant is poor illiterate and suffering from various ailments, the requirement Page No.# 4/4 of satisfying the presence of sufficient cause is not fulfilled. Unless the cause shown is of such nature which had prevented the applicant in approaching the court within the prescribed period of limitation, the court cannot help the litigant, by taking a liberal view, in case of involvement of huge delay as in the present case. 10. On perusal of the medical documents annexed by the petitioner along with his interlocutory application, it appears that though the applicant was suffering from some ailments like hypertension and optical and eye problem, however, same cannot be regarded as ailment of such nature which could have prevented the applicant from approaching court for filing the connected appeal for such a long period of 932 days. This court is therefore, of the considered opinion that the applicant has failed to show sufficient cause which prevented him from approaching this court for filing the connected MAC Appeal within the period of limitation. 11. This court is, therefore, constrained to dismiss the instant interlocutory application and reject the prayer for condonation of delay. JUDGE Comparing Assistant