✦ Gauhati High Court · 08 Aug 2022

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM v. M/S ORIENTAL INS. CO. LTD AND 2 ORS

CIVIL) No. 1576 of 2020R M CHHAYA3 min read

Case at a glance

Decided
08 Aug 2022
Bench
R M CHHAYA

Outcome

Allowed

condition, the application is allowed

Provisions considered

Judgment

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. S DUTTA - B E F O R E - HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. R.M. CHHAYA Date : 08-08-2022 ORDER Heard Mr. S. Islam, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant. Also heard Ms. S. Mochahari, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent Page No.# 2/3 No.1/Insurance Company and Mr. M. Talukdar, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent No.2. By this application under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (as amended) read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the applicant/appellant has prayed for condonation of delay of 470 days in preferring the connected appeal. Mr. S. Islam, learned counsel for the applicant/ appellant at the outset submits that as there is delay of 470 days, the applicant/appellant would not claim interest for 270 days in filing the connected appeal. Mr. S. Islam further submits that in order to see that the applicant gets adequate compensation, this Court may take a lenient view and condone the delay so that the applicant may have an opportunity to redress her grievance on merits in the appeal.

Having considered the averments made in Paragraphs 2 to 11 of this application and also considering the fact that the applicant as claimant has a right of just and adequate compensation, the delay though being enormous is required to be condoned, however, with condition. Following the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. -Vs- Mst. Katiji & Ors., reported in AIR 1987 SC 1353, in the facts of this case the applicant has been able to establish sufficient cause. However, it is also to be noted that the Insurance Company should not be saddled with liability of interest for a long period of 470 days. At this stage, Mr. S. Islam, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant states that this Court may take a lenient view and the applicant is ready and willing to forego interest for 270 days. In totality of facts and considering the fact that the applicant has volunteered not to claim any interest for 270 days and considering the Page No.# 3/3 explanations rendered by the applicant, though the delay is of 470 days, considering the fact that the applicant is claimant in a motor accident claim, which is a benevolent legislation and as rightly pointed out by Mr.

Operative part

S. Islam, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant, the applicant is entitled to just and adequate compensation, in the interest of justice and in peculiar facts of this case, delay of 470 days is hereby condoned. However, it is provided that the applicant shall not be entitled to any interest for 270 days. On this condition, the application is allowed. Registry to register and number the connected appeal and list the same for admission hearing on 17.08.2022 before the regular Bench. Copy of this order be placed in the records of the main appeal. CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: condition, the application is allowed

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — s. 173; Limitation Act, 1963 — s. 5.

Which court decided this case, and when?

Gauhati High Court, on 08 Aug 2022. The bench was R M CHHAYA.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Gauhati High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. CIVIL) No. 1576 of 2020). ← Search more judgments