Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010079692026 2026:GAU-AS:6630 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/152/2026 ASHISH JALAN S/O LATE DR. BALA KRISHNA JALAN, R/O CENTRAL PLAZA, 2ND FLOOR, FANCY BAZAR, M.S. ROAD, P.S.- PANABAZAR, P.O.- PANBAZAR, DIST- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, PIN- 781001 VERSUS MRS. DURGA DAS AND ANR W/O LATE BIJAY DAS @ BIJOY DAS, R/O BIRUBARI JAYANAGAR, JAYAPATH, HOUSE NO. 46, P.S.- PALTAN BAZAR, P.O.- GOPINATH NAGAR, GUWAHATI-781016, DIST- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM 2:THE BRANCH MANAGER THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. BHANGAGARH G.S. ROAD GUWAHATI-781005 KAMRUP (M) ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR B SHARMA, MR. M HASSAN Advocate for the Respondent : , BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA ORDER Date : 13.05.2026 Heard Mr. B. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Page No.# 2/5 2. The petitioner is the owner-cum-driver of the vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-01-BF-6364. The said vehicle was involved in a road traffic accident which had occurred on 07.08.2018 leading to the death of the rider of a motorcycle bearing Registration No. AS-01-R-1247 on 08.08.2018. Accordingly, the respondent No. 1 claimant, who is the wife of the deceased, had filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the MV Act, 1988, which was registered as MAC Case No. 361/2019, and is pending before the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.2, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent No. 2, which is the insurer of the said vehicle, did not lead any evidence and sought for adjournment on 21.11.2023, 04.03.2024, 14.06.2024, and 20.07.2024 and despite dates being fixed on 10.09.2024, 30.10.2024, 04.02.2025 and 30.04.2025. Thereafter, the learned Tribunal, by its order dated 03.06.2025, held that the respondent No. 2 insurer was absent without steps, and the case proceeded ex parte against the insurer and the case was fixed for argument on 14.07.2025. 4. The respondent No. 2 insurer did not advance any argument after 14.07.2025, on dates which were fixed on 10.09.2025, 15.10.2025, 15.11.2025, and 06.12.2025, and on 30.01.2026. However, the respondent No. 2 filed petition No. 386/2026 before the learned Tribunal to allow it to adduce their defence evidence. There was no prayer made for setting aside or recalling of the order dated 03.06.2025 to proceed ex parte against the respondent No. 2. The learned Tribunal allowed the said petition No. 386/2026 on the same date, i.e., 30.01.2026. 5. Accordingly, the petitioner had filed petition No. 900/2026 dated Page No.# 3/5 16.02.2026 under Section 151 CPC, praying for the recall of the order dated 30.01.2026. However, the said application was dismissed and the case was fixed for cross-examination of DW-2 as the learned Tribunal had permitted the respondent No. 2 to produce its witness even before adjudication of the said petition No. 900/2026. 6. Accordingly, on the ground that the procedure adopted by the learned Tribunal was perverse and not in accordance with the established procedure of practice and that without the recalling of the order to proceed ex parte, the respondent No. 2 was allowed to adduce evidence during the pendency of petition No. 900/2026, the petitioner has assailed the impugned orders dated 30.01.2026 and 07.03.2026, passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.2, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati, in connection with MAC Case No. 361/2019. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has forcefully submitted that as the order of proceeding ex parte against the respondent No. 2 was not set aside, the Tribunal would not have jurisdiction to allow the prayer made by the respondent No. 2 to adduce evidence. It is further submitted that although a lot of adjournments were taken by the respondent No. 2, and ultimately it failed to appear and contest the proceedings, and therefore, if the impugned orders are not set aside, it will lay down a new procedure of practice, which would permit anyone to default in appearance and in adducing evidence and thereafter get the ex parte orders vacated without assigning any good cause. 8. In this case, the petitioner is the owner of the offending vehicle and, therefore, even if the proceedings of the learned Tribunal are pending since 2019, the petitioner would not be the person affected by the delay in the Page No.# 4/5 adjudication of the said MAC Case No. 361/2019. 9. From the documents appended to this revision application, it emerges that the investigators of the respondent No. 2 found out that at the time of the accident, the owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle i.e. the petitioner was not holding any valid and effective driving licence, which was projected to be a breach of the terms and conditions of the policy. Therefore, the petition was filed on the ground that while passing the final award, liberty be granted to the respondent No. 2 to recover the awarded amount from the owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle. 10. In the considered opinion of the Court, as it is the projected case of the respondent No. 2 that the owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle, i.e., the petitioner, was not holding any valid and effective driving licence, even at a belated stage after taking adjournments, it would be within the power of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to consider the prayer of the insurer to allow them to adduce evidence. This is because there is a mandate under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the driver of the vehicle to have a valid licence, and therefore, the driving of a motor vehicle without a licence is a breach of the legal duty cast under the said Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 11. Accordingly, the Court is of the considered opinion that the procedure of law is only a handmaid of justice, and in cases where the owner and driver of the vehicle do not possess a valid and effective driving licence, as in this case, it would be within the jurisdiction of the learned Motor Vehicle Claims Tribunal to pass the impugned order. 12. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, while Page No.# 5/5 the Court is inclined not to interfere with the impugned order, it is made clear that the impugned orders dated 30.01.2026 and 07.03.2026 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.2, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, are passed under the unique facts of the said case, and the said order as well as this order passed in this application today, shall be restricted to the unique facts of this case and shall not be a precedent for any other case. 13. Accordingly, the Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order at the instance of the owner-cum-driver of the vehicle, against whom the allegation is that he did not hold a valid driving licence. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. 14. Nothing contained in this order shall be construed as if there is any finding by this Court on the validity of the driving licence of the petitioner, and therefore, the learned Tribunal shall decide the claim petition without being influenced by any observation made in this order. JUDGE Comparing Assistant