Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010247422024 2026:GAU-AS:955 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/3660/2024 RAHIMA BEGUM CHOUDHURY W/O LATE JAMIR UDDIN, S.S ROAD LAKHTOKIA PANBAZAR, GUWAHATI 01, DIST KAMRUP M ASSAM VERSUS BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD AND 9 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE REGIONAL MANAGER G.S ROAD, CENTRE POINT 2ND FLOOR, ULUBARI, GUWAHATI 07 ALSO HAVING A DIVISIONAL OFFICE, KAKATI BHAWAN, 1ST FLOOR, MAIN MARKET, MAIN ROAD, DIST BONGAIGAON, ASSAM 783380 2:SRI SOMENDU BIKASH NARZARY S/O LATE RAMESWAR NARZARY VILLAGE PASCHIM BORAGAON MIKIRGHULI PO DEVKOTANAGAR PS GARCHUK DIST KAMRUP M ASSAM781011 3:MD. ASURUDDIN ALI FATHER OF THE DECEASED . RESIDENT OF PUB DAKHIN ABADI PO CHAKIHALI PS MANIKPUR DIST BONGAIGAON ASSAM 783392 4:SMTI JARINA KHATUN MOTHER OF THE DECEASED . RESIDENT OF PUB DAKHIN ABADI PO CHAKIHALI PS MANIKPUR DIST BONGAIGAON ASSAM 783392 Page No.# 2/4 5:MISS MASUMA KHATUN BROTHER OF THE DECEASED . RESIDENT OF PUB DAKHIN ABADI PO CHAKIHALI PS MANIKPUR DIST BONGAIGAON ASSAM 783392 6:MD. AZIZUL ALI (MINOR) BROTHER OF THE DECEASED . RESIDENT OF PUB DAKHIN ABADI PO CHAKIHALI PS MANIKPUR DIST BONGAIGAON ASSAM 783392 7:MD. SHAKIL ALI (MINOR) BROTHER OF THE DECEASED . RESIDENT OF PUB DAKHIN ABADI PO CHAKIHALI PS MANIKPUR DIST BONGAIGAON ASSAM 783392 8:MISS AKHTARA KHATUN (MINOR) SISTER OF THE DECEASED . RESIDENT OF PUB DAKHIN ABADI PO CHAKIHALI PS MANIKPUR DIST BONGAIGAON ASSAM 783392 9:MISS MOUSUMI KHATUN (MINOR) SISTER OF THE DECEASED . RESIDENT OF PUB DAKHIN ABADI PO CHAKIHALI PS MANIKPUR DIST BONGAIGAON ASSAM 783392. RES. NO. 4 TO 7 ARE MINOR AND REP. BY RES. NO. 1 AND 2 10:MD. ANAMUL HOQUE LASKAR S/O SHAFIQUR RAHMAN LASKAR RESIDENT OF PASCHIM NILBAGAN PO NILBAGAN DIST HOJAI ASSAM 78244 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. I A TALUKDAR, MR. B HUSSAIN Advocate for the Respondent : MR. P K SARMA (R-2), MR. A BHATTACHARYYA (R-1),MR. B HUSSAIN(R-3,54,5,6),MR. S ALIM (R-3,54,5,6),MR. S Z RAHMAN(R-10),MRS. M Page No.# 3/4 TALUKDAR(R-10),MR. N I KHAN (R-10) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER Date : 28.01.2026 Heard Mr. I. A. Talukdar, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. A. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1; Ms. P. Kakati, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2; Mr. A. H. Ansari, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 to 7 and Mr. N. I. Khan, learned counsel for the respondent No. 10. [2.] This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has been filed by the applicant, Ms. Rahima Begum Choudhury, praying for condoning of delay of 226 days in preferring the connected appeal, whereby, the applicant has impugned the Judgment and Award dated 08.01.2024 passed in MAC Case No. 212 of 2017 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kamrup (M), whereby the respondent No. 2 was directed to pay 50% of the compensation amount of Rs.19,05,100/- along with an interested of 6.5% per annum to the claimant respondent. [3.] The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant is the wife of the original owner, who had expired during the pendency of the proceedings of MAC Case No. 212 of 2017. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant was unable to prefer the connected appeal within the prescribed period of limitation as she was suffering from various ailments. He further submits that the applicant has stated the reasons for failing to approach this Court within the prescribed period of limitation in Paragraph Nos. 3 & 4 of the instant condonation application. He submits that Page No.# 4/4 the applicant has been prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the connected appeal within the period of limitation. Hence, he prays for condoning the delay of 226 days. [4.] On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1 has objected to the condonation of delay of 226 days on the ground that the applicant has failed to prove the existence of sufficient cause which prevented her from approaching this Court within the prescribed period of limitation. The respondents have not raised any objection to condonation of delay. [5.] I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the both sides and I have also gone through the medical documents annexed with the condonation of delay application by the applicant in support of her contentions. [6.] Considering the ground stated in the Paragraph Nos. 3 & 4 of the instant interlocutory application to be sufficient cause which prevented the applicant in approaching this Court within the prescribed period of limitation, this Court is inclined to condone the delay of 226 days and accordingly does the same. [7.] This interlocutory application is accordingly allowed. [8.] The Registry is directed to register the connected MAC appeal and list the same for admission after seven (7) days on a date to be fixed by the Registry, itself. JUDGE Comparing Assistant