Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010187172024 2026:GAU-AS:9878 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/1422/2025 SABURA KHATUN AND 3 ORS S/O. LT. MANGAL ALI 2: DALIMAN BEWA W/O. LT. DARAG ALI 3: AZIZUL HOQUE D/O. MANGAL ALI 4: MAMONI BEGUM S/O. LT. MANGAL ALI APPELLANT NO. 3 AND 4 ARE REP. BY THE APPELLANT NO. 1 ALL ARE R/O. OF VILL.- NICHUKA P/O. BARPETA ROAD P/S. BARPETA ROAD DIST. BARPETA ASSAM PIN-781315 VERSUS ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, BARPETA ROAD BRANCH, MAIN ROAD, BARPETA, P/O. AND P/S. BARPETA, DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN-781315. 2:MOKADESH ALI S/O. MOHAMMAD AKBAR ALI VILL.- LACHANGA P/O. CHARCHARIA P/S. KALGACHIA DIST. BARPETA ASSAM PIN-781319. Page No.# 2/8 3:FAZAL ALI S/O. GIASH UDDIN VILL.- KHAIRABARI P/O. KHAIRABARI P/S. BARPETA ROAD DIST. BARPETA ASSAM PIN-781315. 4:BAHATAN BEWA W/O. DARAG ALI VILL.- NICHUKA P/O. BARPETA ROAD P/S. BARPETA ROAD DIST. BARPETA ASSAM PIN-781315 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S AHMED, MS. M. KHATUN,MS N AKTAR Advocate for the Respondent : MR. J KALITA(R1), In MAC App. Case No. 10499/2024(filing number) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 17.07.2026 [1] Heard Mr. S. Ahmed, the learned counsel for the applicants. Also heard Mr. J. Kalita, the learned counsel for the insurance company. [2] This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has been filed by the applicants/claimants for condonation of delay of 602 days in preferring the connected MAC Appeal, wherein the judgment and award dated 20.09.2022, passed in Page No.# 3/8 MAC Case No. 284/2020 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barpeta has been impugned. [3] The learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the impugned judgement and award by which a compensation amount of Rs. 9,35,000/-(Rupees Nine Lakh Thirty-Five Thousand) only, along with an interest at the rate of 9% was granted to the present applicants was passed on 20.09.2022. [4] He submits that the applicants are aggrieved with the quantum of compensation awarded to them and the appeal ought to have been filed latest by 18.12.2022, however, same has been filed only on 09.09.2024 causing a delay of 602 days in filing the said appeal. [5] He submits that the reasons for delay in filing the connected appeal was beyond the control of the present applicants as the applicants used to reside at Lucknow in Uttar Pradesh for earning their livelihood. He submits that the applicants came to know about the impugned judgment and award for the first time only on 09.06.2023 and on 12.06.2023, they received the awarded amount from the Tribunal. [6] The learned counsel for the applicants submits that after receiving the awarded amount, the applicants returned back to Lucknow for earning their livelihood and it is only in Lucknow, when they consulted Page No.# 4/8 some lawyers, the applicants came to know that they can file an appeal praying for enhancement of the awarded amount and as such in the month of December, 2023 they engaged a counsel to prefer an appeal. [7] It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the engaged counsel took some time for preparing the memo of appeal as well as the interlocutory application. As such, delay of 602 days has been caused in preferring the connected appeal. [8] The learned counsel for the applicants submits that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has assessed the notional income of the deceased on a very lower side and also has not taken into consideration certain documents showing expenditure on medical bills of the deceased. As such, he submits that the applicants are hopeful of getting an enhancement of the compensation amount awarded to them. He submits that if the delay in preferring the connected MAC Appeal is not condoned, the applicants shall suffer great prejudice as well as financial loss. [9] The learned counsel for the applicants submits that the cause for delay in preferring the connected appeal has been explained in detail in paragraphs Nos. 6 to 15 of the instant interlocutory application and same may be regarded as sufficient cause which prevented the applicants in preferring the Page No.# 5/8 connected appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. As such, he prays for condoning the aforesaid delay and allowing the instant interlocutory application. [10] On the other hand, Mr. J. Kalita, the learned counsel for the insurance company has vehemently opposed the prayer for condoning the delay of 602 days. He submits that the awarded amount has already been disbursed to the present applicant’s way back on 12.06.2023, and even after receipt of the awarded compensation amount, a period of 01 year 03 months therefrom have lapsed before filing the appeal and the said period of delay has not been properly explained by the applicants. [11] He submits that the delay caused in preferring the connected appeal in this case is a huge delay of 602 days, which has not been properly explained by the applicants. As such, he prays for dismissing the instant interlocutory application. [12] I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials available on record. I have also gone through the grounds for delay stated by the applicants in the instant interlocutory application. [13] Though, it is a settled proposition of law that while considering an application for condonation of delay, a justice-oriented approach shall have to be taken and a Page No.# 6/8 liberal view is generally taken by condoning the delay, however, courts have to be cautious while dealing with a case involving huge period of delay. Moreso, when the delay has not been properly explained. [14] The Apex Court of India, while emphasising the need to examine the nature of explanation for delay, has observed in the case of “Maniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal Corpn. of Brihan Mumbai, (2012) 5 SCC 157” as follows: - 23. What needs to be emphasised is that even though a liberal and justice-oriented approach is required to be adopted in the exercise of power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and other similar statutes, the courts can neither become oblivious of the fact that the successful litigant has acquired certain rights on the basis of the judgment under challenge and a lot of time is consumed at various stages of litigation apart from the cost. 24. What colour the expression “sufficient cause” would get in the factual matrix of a given case would largely depend on bona fide nature of the explanation. If the court finds that there has been no negligence on the part of the applicant and the cause shown for the delay does not lack bona fides, then it may condone the delay. If, on the other hand, the explanation given by the applicant is found to be concocted or he is thoroughly negligent in prosecuting his cause, then it would be a legitimate exercise of discretion not to condone the delay. Page No.# 7/8 [15] In the instant case, the judgment and award which is sought to be impugned in the connected appeal was delivered on 20.09.2022.Though, the applicants have taken plea that they came to know about the impugned judgment only on 09.06.2023, however, nothing has been mentioned in the instant interlocutory application as to why they did not immediately, after delivery of the impugned judgment, came to know about the same. Nothing has been alleged that they were not intimated by their engaged counsel about the fate of the MAC Case filed by them. By merely stating that the applicants were residing at Lucknow cannot be regarded as sufficient cause for the delay as the MAC Case No. 284/20 was filed by them and they ought to have kept track of the fate of the claim case filed by them. However, nothing has been explained in this regard in the delay condonation petition. [16] Even if, the story narrated by the applicants is believed, still there is no justification as to why after coming to know about the impugned judgment on 09.06.2023, they waited for 6(six) months till December, 2023 to discuss the matter with their counsel regarding filing of an appeal. Further, the reasons stated in the instant interlocutory application for belated filing of application for certified copy of the impugned judgment and award only on 16.03.2024, may also not be Page No.# 8/8 regarded as sufficient cause which was beyond the control of the applicants. [17] Thus from above, it appears that there has been negligence on the part of the applicants in approaching this court by filing the connected appeal within the prescribed period of limitation and the explanation given by them for the delay caused in preferring the connected appeal lacks bona fide so as to treat the same to be a sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. As such, this court is not inclined to condone the huge delay of 602 days when filing the connected MACAppeal. [18] Accordingly, this interlocutory application is dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant