Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010167012021 2026:GAU-AS:2704 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/2425/2021 SUNESWAR DAS AND ANR. S/O- LATE TILESWAR DAS, R/O- HAWAJAN, P.S. HAWAJAN, DIST.- BISWANATH, ASSAM 2: DIPEN DAS S/O- SUNESWAR DAS R/O- HAWAJAN P.S. HAWAJAN DIST.- BISWANATH ASSA VERSUS ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. REGIONAL OFFICE ULUBARI, G.S. ROAD, DIST.- KAMRUP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : B R DAS, Advocate for the Respondent : MR. S A HUSSAIN, MR D J HALOI In MACApp. Case No. 9131/2021 (Filing Number) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA Page No.# 2/7 ORDER 09.01.2026 [1] Heard Mr. B.R. Das, the learned counsel for the applicants. Also heard Mr. S.A. Hussain, the learned counsel for the respondent/insurance company. [2] This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has been filed by the applicants praying for condoning the delay of 993 days in filing the connected MACAppeal, whereby the Judgment and Order dated 23.12.2016, passed in MACT Case No. 85/2014, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Lakhimpur has been impugned. [3] The facts relevant for consideration of the instant interlocutory application that the applicant No. 2 was injured in the motor vehiclular accident which occurred on 08.06.2014, at about 10:00 AM at National Highway No. 52 at Deory Gaon under Gohpur Police Station. [4] The present applicants had filed a claim case seeking compensation for the injury sustained by the applicant No. 2 in the motor vehicular accident before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Lakhimpur. The said claim case was registered as MACT Case No. 85/2014. After completion of the inquiry, the aforesaid Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Lakhimpur directed the respondent to pay a compensation of Rs. 7,34,881/- to the claimant with an interest of 7.5% per annum from the date of order till realization. [5] The learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that Page No.# 3/7 since the applicants were not present before the Tribunal, when the impugned judgment and award was delivered, on 23.12.2016, hence, they were not aware about the said judgment and award. The learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicants were not aware about the delivery of judgment and award till 90 days after the delivery of the same. [6] The learned counsel for the applicants has also submitted that before filing the instant interlocutory application, the applicants filed the MACAppeal against the impugned judgment before the Itanagar Bench, of Gauhati High Court which was registered as MACAppeal No. 30(AP)2018 and I.A.(C) No. 231 (AP) 2018, which were dismissed on 13.11.2019 with a direction to file the appeal before appropriate forum. [7] The learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that thereafter due to COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown situation as well as medical problems faced by the applicants; they were unable to come to Guwahati to swear the affidavit or preferring the connected appeal. As such, a delay of 993 days has occurred in filing the connected MACAppeal. [8] The learned counsel for the applicants submits that the delay was not due to the negligence on the part of the applicants. It was caused bonafide due to the circumstances beyond the control of the applicants and as such he pressed for condoning the aforesaid delay. [9] On the other hand, Mr. S. A. Hussain, the learned counsel for Page No.# 4/7 the respondent/insurance Company, has vehemently opposed the prayer for condonation of delay of 993 days caused in preferring the connected MAC Appeal by the applicants. [10] He submits that even the applicants approached the wrong forum, i.e., Itanagar Bench of this court after a delay of 622 days and said delay has not been properly explained by the applicants. He submits that the applicants have failed to satisfy the court as to why even after the rejection of the prayer, I.A. preferred wrong forum. Again, substantial delay was caused, which remained unexplained. He submits that the COVID-19 pandemic was in force from the last part of March’2020 only. However, the applicants have not explained the delay prior to March’2020 after rejection their earlier I.A. preferred before the wrong forum. He further submits that the medical documents annexed around the interlocutory application does not specify as to with what ailment the applicant was suffering from. He submits that these are common ailments like body and chest pain, high blood sugar, etc. for which the plea of delay for more than 993 days cannot be condoned. He, therefore, prays for dismissing the instant interlocutory application. [11] I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials available on record. [12] On perusal of the materials on record, it appears that the applicants initially approached the wrong forum, i.e., the Itanagar bench of Gauhati High Court. However, while approaching that Page No.# 5/7 forum also, there was a delay of more than 600 days, which is required to be properly explained, in filing the instant interlocutory application, which has not been done by the applicants. [13] The applicants have not specifically mentioned as to when the judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal came to their notice, without mentioning the said date, they are seeking condonation of delay on the ground that they were not aware about the impugned judgment at the time. It is certain that before filing the appeal/interlocutory application before the wrong forum at Itanagar Bench, the appellant must have come to know about the impugned judgment and order; however, same has not been disclosed. Suppression of such material fact, in this interlocutory application, goes against the interest of the applicants. [14] Further, it appears that the Interlocutory Application (C) No. 231 (AP) 2018, in MACAppeal No. 30(AP)2018 which was filed by the applications before the wrong forum was dismissed before the co-ordinate Bench of this court on 13.11.2019. However, the lockdown for COVID-19 started only in the last part of March’2020. Apart from merely stating that the applicants were able to get the certified copy of the order dated 13.11.2019 passed by the Itanagar bench in the aforementioned interlocutory application only on 20.03.2021, nothing has been stated therein as to when the said certified copy was applied for and to substantiate the contentions the copy of certified copies were not annexed, along with the additional affidavit. Page No.# 6/7 [15] As the lockdown due to COVID-19 pandemic was effective from last part of March’2020, the period after 13.11.2019 till before the starting of the lockdown has to be properly explained by the applicants, but same has not been explained by adducing any cogent materials. [16] Though, in dealing with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the courts are generally liberal and a justice oriented approach is adopted. However, the applicants cannot take the said approach for granted and take flimsy pleas in the application for condonation of delay. When the delay is a huge delay of the 900 plus days, it was incumbent on the applicants to justify the reasons for the delay in best possible manner without suppressing any facts from the court. However, the applicants have failed to do so. [17] This court is, therefore, is of the considered opinion that the applicants have failed to show that they were prevented by sufficient cause in approaching this court for filing the connected appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. [18] Accordingly, their prayer for condonation of delay made in the instant interlocutory application is hereby rejected and this interlocutory application is, accordingly, dismissed. Page No.# 7/7 JUDGE Comparing Assistant