Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010029742024 2026:GAU-AS:9772 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/547/2024 NIPU KONCH AND ANR. S/O LATE THANESWAR KONCH, R/O MAJJHALBARI, P.O.- JHALBHARI, P.S.- DHAKUAKHANA, DIST.- LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM. 2: ARUP BORUAH S/O LATE SASHIDHAR BORUAH R/O MAJJHALBARI P.O.- JHALBHARI P.S.- DHAKUAKHANA DIST.- LAKHIMPUR ASSAM VERSUS KRISHNA DUTTA AND KRISHNA KANTA DUTTA S/O LATE NIRANJAN DUTTA, R/O MAJJHALBARI, P.O.- JHALBHARI, P.S.- DHAKUAKHANA, DIST.- LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM. Advocate for the Petitioner : MR B BORA, MR P S RAJA Advocate for the Respondent : MR. D K BAGCHI, Page No.# 2/5 Linked Case : NIPU KONCH AND ANR. VERSUS KRISHNA DUTTA AND KRISHNA KANTA DUTTA F Advocate for : MR B BORA Advocate for : appearing for KRISHNA DUTTA AND KRISHNA KANTA DUTTA F BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA ORDER 17.07.2026 Heard Mr. R. Sarma, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. A. Ikbal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1. 2. This is an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 for condonation of delay of 388 days in filing the connected appeal against the Judgment & Award dated 19.10.2022 passed in MACT Case No. 8/2019 by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur. 3. The applicants herein are the owner and driver of the motorcycle involved in the accident and the said offending vehicle was not covered by any insurance and hence, the present applicants have been made liable to satisfy the impugned award in equal proportion. 4. The applicants herein admit to having received notice of the case from the learned tribunal and also to have engaged the learned counsel to represent them. A written statement was also filed on behalf Page No.# 3/5 of the applicant No.2, though none was filed on behalf of the applicant No. 1. The case proceeded ex- parte against both the applicants and upon conclusion of the proceedings, the impugned Judgment & Award was made. 5. The facts of the case briefly put is that the present applicants and another person were riding the offending vehicle bearing Registration No. AS07B6492 on 08.01.2019 and they met with an accident, resulting in injuries to the claimant. The incident took place at Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur. The case had proceeded ex-parte, and it appears that in view of the evidence adduced by the claimants, the learned tribunal came to the finding that the claimant/respondent was entitled to the amount as mentioned in the impugned Judgment & Award. 6. A written objection has been submitted on behalf of the sole respondent herein, disputing the contentions of the applicants. 7. Upon perusal of the instant application, it appears that the applicants have sought to place the entire blame upon their engaged counsel, whom they have not named. It is stated in the instant application that whenever the applicants inquired about the status of their case, their respective counsels told them that they need not worry about it and that they were taking good care of everything. 8. Prima facie, it is not believable that both the counsels engaged by the applicants separately would behave in the same manner. Moreover, as rightly contended by the respondent, no name of any such counsel has been mentioned. If such a plea is allowed to be taken and accepted, then in every case, it would be open for the applicants seeking condonation of delay to put forth a similar claim, thereby covering up their own negligence in pursuing the matter. It is for that reason that something more than a bald allegation of negligence of counsel is to be pleaded and proved. But no other or better particular has been mentioned with regard to the time or place in which the applicants had contacted their respective counsels or whether any written communications had been made to the said counsel Page No.# 4/5 inquiring regarding the status of the case. 9. In the case of Rajneesh Kumar & Anr. Vs. Ved Prakash, reported in SLP(Civil) Nos. 935-936 of 2021, the Hon’ble Apex Court had observed that carelessness and negligence on the part of the concerned lawyer itself cannot be a ground to condone long and inordinate delay, as the litigant owes a duty to be vigilant of his own rights and is expected to be equally vigilant about the judicial proceedings pending in the Court initiated at this instance. It is further observed that the litigant should not be permitted to shift the entire blame upon the advocate and thereby disown him at any time and seek relief. Similar is the proposition of law in the case of Nitin Mahadeo Jawale & Ors. Vs. Bhaskar Mahadeo Mutke, in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)…. Of 2024 (Arising out of Diary No. 25784/2024). 10. In the matter of condonation of delay, it is a settled law that a liberal, pragmatic and justice- oriented approach is to be adopted while deciding whether sufficient cause has been shown for the delay,but it is equally true that while condoning the delay, the conduct, behavior and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. After all, the other side should not be unnecessarily exposed or compelled to face litigation once again due to the negligence of the party seeking condonation of delay. 11. The applicants claim to have come to know about the impugned Judgment only on 29.12.2023, but have refrained from citing the source of such knowledge and having obtained the certified copy on 02.01.2024, they managed to prefer the appeal/application only in February 2024, citing financial constraints. However, the applicants have not mentioned their occupation which should have enabled the Court to verify the truth of their claim of financial constraint. Page No.# 5/5 12. Further, if the claim of the applicants regarding negligence of their engaged counsel is true,it is open for them to seek compensation from such engaged counsel from the appropriate forum. 13. In view of the above discussion, I am of the view that the applicants have failed to show sufficient cause, which prevented them from approaching this Court within the period of limitation prescribed by law. 14. Consequently, the I.A. is found to be devoid of merit and accordingly dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant