Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010009092025 2026:GAU-AS:519 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/225/2025 CHUMKI BORAH AND ANR W/O. LT. NITU BORAH 2: KOLIMAI BORAH W/O. LT. BAP CHANDRA BORAH R/O. NI.1 PUKHURIA P/O AND P/S. LALUK DIST. LAKHIMPUR ASSAM VERSUS REGIONAL OFFICE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. AND ANR LOHIA MANSON, 3RD FLOOR BHANGAGARH, G.S. ROAD, GUWAHATI-05. 2:BUDHIN KALITA S/O. LT. SONARAM KALITA R/O. VILL. PADUMONI P/O. AND P/S. LALUK DIST. LAKHIMPUR ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : B R DAS, MS M BHARATI Advocate for the Respondent : M CHETIA (R-1), MS L SHARMA (R-1),MR. A J SAIKIA(R-1) in MACApp.Case No. 539/2025 With MACApp. Case No. 539/2025 (Filing Number) Page No.# 2/6 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 08.01.2026 1. Heard Mr. B.R. Das, the learned counsel for the applicants. Also heard Mr. A.J. Saikia, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1. 2. This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has been filed by the applicants, namely, 1. Smt Chumki Borah and 2. Smt Kolimai Borah praying for condonation of delay of 940 days in preferring the connected MAC appeal praying for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the judgment and award dated 16.03.2022, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Lakhimpur in MAC Case No. 34/2019, whereby, the claimants were awarded a compensation amount of Rs. 8,90,500/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Ninety Thousand and Five Hundred) only with an interest of 7.5 % per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization. 3. The learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicants were not aware about the date of the delivery of judgment, i.e. 16.03.2022 and also not aware of the fact that the appeal must be filed within 90 days of the judgment. He submits that the engaged counsel for the applicants before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal did not inform the applicants that an appeal may also be filed for enhancement of award before the High Court. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that on Page No.# 3/6 19.11.2024, he was engaged by the applicants and he was requested to obtain certified copy. Accordingly, the application for certified copy was filed on 22.10.2024 and same was received on 30.11.2024. 5. The learned counsel for the applicants further submits that the applicants suffered from old age ailment/back bone pain, gastritis problem, and headache and eye problem and as such they were not in a position to pursue the appeal. 6. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicant No. 1 had to look after her mother and therefore, was not in a position to file the connected appeal within due time. 7. The learned counsel for the applicants has further submitted that the applicants were prevented by sufficient cause in preferring the connected MAC Appeal within the prescribed period of limitation and as such a liberal view of the matter should be taken by this court. 8. He further submits that the applicant No. 1 is poor and illiterate and was entirely dependent on the income of her deceased husband and therefore, she could not file the connected appeal within due time. He further submits that there is no malafide intention on the part of the applicants in approaching this court belatedly. Hence, he prays for condoning the delay of 940 days. 9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 has vehemently opposed the prayer for condonation of delay of 940 days in filing the connected MAC appeal. Page No.# 4/6 10. He submits that the applicants were awarded a just compensation by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and they were negligent in not filing the appeal for enhancement if it was intended by them within due time. 11. He further submits that ignorance of law cannot be an excuse for allowing the prayer for condonation of huge delay of 940 days. He submits that if the plea of the applicants is accepted, there would be no period of limitation for a person to file an appeal after howsoever belated period. 12. He further submits that from the averments made in paragraph No. 9 of the delay condonation petition, wherein, it has been stated that the counsel Mr. Boloram Das has been engaged by the applicants on 19.11.2024, however, the statement that he had applied for certified copy on 22.10.2024 itself contradicts the earlier statement made by the applicants. 13. The learned counsel for the applicants further submits that though it is stated in the application that the applicants is suffering from old age ailment, however, the applicant No. 1 is aged about only 30 years and therefore, said contention is not believable. He further submits that the medical documents annexed with the application does not disclose as to from what ailment the applicants were suffering from. He further submits that even if assuming that the applicants were suffering from ailment, unless it is of a nature which would have prevented the applicants from approaching the court in filing the connected appeal within prescribed period of the limitation, Page No.# 5/6 the same may not be regarded as sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 14. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials available on record. 15. In the instant case, the applicants were awarded a compensation amount of Rs. 8,90,500/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Ninety Thousand and Five Hundred) only, along with an interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. However, the applicants have filed the connected appeal impugning the judgment and award on the ground that the assessments of the income of the deceased as well as future prospect were not taken into consideration. Further some other aspects like loss of estate and compensation against loss of love and affection was also not taken into consideration. However, it appears that the connected appeal has been preferred after a huge delay of 940 days and only reasons mentioned for such delay has been stated as “some unintentional and compelling circumstances beyond reach.” 16. It is also stated that the engaged counsel of the applicants before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal did not informed the date of delivery of judgment to the applicants. However, it is not made clear in the delay condonation application by the applicants as to when they came to know about the impugned judgment. 17. Further, the contention that the applicants were not aware about Page No.# 6/6 their right to file an appeal for enhancement of the awarded amount within the period of 90 days can also be not regarded as a cogent ground. If said plea is accepted there would be no effective period of limitation for filing the appeal. If such a plea is allowed, anyone coming belatedly before the appellate court, may take this plea that they were not aware about the legal position regarding the law of limitation. 18. The plea that the applicants are suffering from old age ailments and other ailments is also not very convincing as unless the ailment is of such a nature which could have prevented the applicants from approaching this court within the prescribed period of limitation, same cannot be regarded as sufficient cause in itself for condoning such a huge delay of 940 days. 19. Though a delay condonation application has to be considered liberally, however, when there is such a huge delay of 940 days, the grounds shown by the applicants for such delay has to be cogent grounds so as to treat it as sufficient cause which the applicants have, in the considered opinion of this court miserably failed, therefore, the prayer for condonation of delayof 940 days is rejected and this interlocutory application is dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant