Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010093652024 2026:GAU-AS:690 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/1489/2024 SAHARA KHATUN W/O LT. ASHRAF ALI, VILL.- SOLMARI, P.O. AND P.S.- SOOTEA, DIST.- (NOW) BISWANATH, ASSAM. VERSUS THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COM0 LTD AND 2 ORS. G.S ROAD, ULUBARI, GUAHATI, PIN- 781005. 2:DIBYAJYOTI SAIKIA S/O BANGSHI SAIKIA R/O CHETIAGAON P.O. AND P.S.- SOOYEA DIST.- BISWANATH ASSAM. 3:PRAFULLA HAZARIKA S/O BINOD HAZARIKA R/O CHETIAGAON P.O. AND P.S.- SOOYEA DIST.- BISWANATH ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : B R DAS, MS M BHARATI Advocate for the Respondent : MS R GANGAWAT(R-1), MR. A BORUA(R-2),MS. P MAHANTA(R-2),MS. P BHATTACHARYA(R-2),MS K GANGAWAT(R-1) Page No.# 2/5 in MACApp.Case No. 5271/2024 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 09.01.2026 1. Heard Mr. B.R. Das, the learned counsel for the applicant. None has appeared for the respondent. 2. This application has been filed by the applicant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, praying for condonation of delay of 2655 days in preferring the connected MAC appeal whereby, the applicant has impugned the judgment and award dated 30.09.2016, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Biswanath Chariali in MAC Case No. 210/2012. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has preferred a Motor Accident Claims Case which was registered as MAC Case No. 210/2012 praying for compensation for death of her husband in a vehicular accident on 22.04.2012. The said claim case was disposed of by the concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by awarding a compensation of Rs. 3,81,550/- along with an interest of Rs. 6% per annum from the date of filing till the date of payments to the present claimant. The said judgment and award was Page No.# 3/5 passed on 29.09.2016. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that on the date of delivery of the judgement, the applicant could not remain present before the Tribunal and therefore, she was unaware about the date of delivery of the judgement. 5. It is further submitted that the applicant was also unaware about her right to prefer an appeal within 90 days of judgment. Thereafter, the appellant engaged the present counsel who filed an application for getting certified copy of the impugned judgment on 19.02.2024 and obtained the said certified copy on 02.04.2024. 6. It is further submitted that the applicant could not approach the appellate court for filing appeal in between last part of 2016 and January 2020 as she was suffering from old age ailments and various ailments. 7. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant had to remain busy in taking care of her ailing mother for which she could not approach the appellate court within due time. 8. It is also submitted that thereafter from the month of January, 2020 Covid-19 came as a result of which the applicant was unable to approach this court by preferring the connected MAC Appeal. Page No.# 4/5 9. Though during hearing of this application the learned counsel for the opposite party/insurance company has not appeared, however, the insurance company has filed a written objection objecting to the condoning of such a huge delay of 2655 days. 10. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant and have gone through the materials available on record. 11. In the instant case, the delay caused involved in approaching this court for filing the connected appeal is a huge delay of 2655 days and no medical documents have been annexed along with the instant interlocutory application. Though it is claimed that the applicant is suffering from various chronic ailments, however, only taking the plea that the applicant is suffering from various chronic ailments without showing that the ailments were of such nature which could have prevented her from approaching the appellate court for such a long period of 2655 days is not sufficient for the applicant to get such a huge delay condoned in the instant case. 12. The applicant has miserably failed to show sufficient cause as to why in between the year 2016-2020, she failed to approach the appellate court when there was no Covid-19. This court is, therefore, of the considered opinion that the applicant has failed to show that she was prevented by Page No.# 5/5 sufficient cause in approaching this court for filing the connected appeal. 13. Accordingly, this court is, therefore, constrained to dismiss the instant interlocutory application and reject the prayer for condonation of delay. JUDGE Comparing Assistant