Gauhati High Court
I.A.(Civil)/2790/2024 of KUHINUR KHATUN AND 3 ORS Vs THE REGIONAL MANAGER AND 4 ORS on 14 June 2026
GAHC010176642024 2026:GAU-AS:8456 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/2790/2024 KUHINUR KHATUN AND 3 ORS W/O LATE SAMSUL ALI DEWAN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHOTO MOZABARI, PO MOZABARI, DIST CHIRANG, BTR ASSAM 2: SAMILA KHATUN
GAHC010176642024
2026:GAU-AS:8456
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/2790/2024
KUHINUR KHATUN AND 3 ORS
W/O LATE SAMSUL ALI DEWAN
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHOTO MOZABARI, PO MOZABARI, DIST
CHIRANG, BTR ASSAM
2: SAMILA KHATUN
D/O LATE SAMSUL ALI DEWAN
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHOTO MOZABARI
PO MOZABARI
DIST CHIRANG
BTR ASSAM.
TO BE REP. BY PET. NO. 1
3: NOORJUL HOQUE
D/O LATE SAMSUL ALI DEWAN
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHOTO MOZABARI
PO MOZABARI
DIST CHIRANG
BTR ASSAM.
TO BE REP. BY PET. NO. 1
4: SARJINA KHATUN
D/O LATE SAMSUL ALI DEWAN
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHOTO MOZABARI
PO MOZABARI
DIST CHIRANG
BTR ASSAM.
TO BE REP. BY PET. NO.
VERSUS
THE REGIONAL MANAGER AND 4 ORS
HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ADITYAM BUILDING, 6TH
FLOOR, G S ROAD, LACHIT NAGAR, GUWAHATI 07
2:THE REGIONAL MANAGER
BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
SREEJI TOWER
2ND FLOOR CHRISTIANBASTI. GS ROAD
GUWAHATI 05
3:INCHUP ALI
S/O AYNUL HOQUE
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BORTALOWA
PO DHALIGAON
DIST CHIRANG BTR
ASSAM
4:ISLAM ALI
S/O AYNUL HOQUE
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BORTALOWA
PO DHALIGAON
DIST CHIRANG BTR
ASSAM
5:JOYNAL ALI DEWAN
S/O LATE AKKES ALI DEWAN
RESIDENT OF BALAIPATHER
PO KALGACHIA
DIST BARPETA
ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR F A LASKAR, R MANDAL (P-1,3,4),MR. R GHOSH (P- 1,3,4),MR. C SHARMA (P-1,3,4),S K PODDAR (P-1,3,4),MR. D H MOZUMDER
Advocate for the Respondent : MR. P HAZARIKA (R- 2), P. BORAH(R- 2)
Linked Case :
KUHINUR KHATUN AND 3 ORS
VERSUS
THE REGIONAL MANAGER AND 4 ORS B
------------
Advocate for : MR F A LASKAR
Advocate for : appearing for THE REGIONAL MANAGER AND 4 ORS B
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
Date : 15.06.2026 Heard Mr. S.K. Poddar, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1.
2. By way of the present interlocutory application, the applicant seeks condonation of a delay of 16 days in preferring the connected appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, against the judgment dated 02/05/2024 passed by the Member MACT, Chirang, Kajalgaon, Assam, in MAC Case No. 06/2023.
3. The grounds of delay are explained as under: - “2. That the impugned judgment and decree was passed 2/5/2024 and there has been a delay of 16 days in filing the instant appeal. The applicant No.1 begs to submit that on the sudden demise of her husband she has been suffering heavy financial crisis to maintain her family and the applicants No. 2 to 4 are school going kids, considerable amount of money has been expended monthly for the purpose of education of the kids apart from the other liabilities of the applicants. Being a widow the applicant No.1 could not approach before this Hon'ble Court in due time due to her financial crisis. On the other hand due to several sicknesses she could not approach before this Hon'ble Court in time. As a result, little delay of 16 days has been caused to file the connected appeal, the said delay is neither intentional nor deliberate. Hence the delay may be condoned by this Hon'ble Court for the interest of justice.”
4. Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel, submits that he has no instructions to oppose the prayer for condonation of delay.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the averments made in the application, this Court is satisfied that the delay has been adequately explained and that sufficient cause has been shown for not filing the appeal within the prescribed period.
6. Accordingly, the delay of 16 days in filing the appeal stands condoned.
7. The interlocutory application is allowed.
8. Let the appeal be registered and numbered and listed along with MACApp./456/2024.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant