THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., v. SMTI. TARAMAI GOGOI AND 3 ORS,
Court: Gauhati High Court
Bench: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND
Judgment date:
Case summary
Gauhati High Court judgment dated 2024-02-22. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., v. SMTI. TARAMAI GOGOI AND 3 ORS,. Read the judgment and case details on...
Judgment text
Page No. # 1/6 GAHC020003852023 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : I. A. (Civil)/92/2023 THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. , REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, DIMAPUR, NAGALAND VERSUS SMTI. TARAMAI GOGOI AND 3 ORS, WIFE OF SHRI DIGANTA GOGOI, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT TUENSANG BAZAR AREA, TUENSANG, NAGALAND, ALTERNATE ADDRESS AT KADAM GOHAIN GAON, P. O KADAM, P. S BOGINADI, DISTRICT LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM 2:SHRI DIPEN GOGOI SON OF SHRI DIGANTA GOGOI PRESENTLY RESIDING AT TUENSANG BAZAR AREA TUENSANG NAGALAND ALTERNATE ADDRESS AT KADAM GOHAIN GAON P. O KADAM P. S BOGINADI DISTRICT LAKHIMPUR ASSAM 3:SHRI DIGANTA GOGOI SON OF MANIKANTA GOGOI Page No. # 2/6 TUENSANG NAGALAND ALTERNATE ADDRESS AT KADAM GOHAIN GAON P. O KADAM P. S BOGINADI DISTRICT LAKHIMPUR ASSAM 4:SHRI ROBIN KONWAR SON OF PADMESWAR KONWAR RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KADAM GOHAIN GAON P. O KADAM P.
S BOGINADI DISTRICT LAKHIMPUR ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : TAYONGCHUBA Advocate for the Respondent : Linked Case : I. A. (Civil)/93/2023 THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER DIMAPUR NAGALAND VERSUS SMTI. TARAMAI GOGOI AND 3 ORS WIFE OF SHRI DIGANTA GOGOI Page No. # 3/6 TUENSANG NAGALAND ALTERNATE ADDRESS AT KADAM GOHAIN GAON P. O KADAM P. S BOGINADI DISTRICT LAKHIMPUR ASSAM 2:SHRI DIPEN GOGOI SON OF SHRI DIGANTA GOGOI PRESENTLY RESIDING AT TUENSANG BAZAR AREA TUENSANG NAGALAND ALTERNATE ADDRESS AT KADAM GOHAIN GAON P. O KADAM P. S BOGINADI DISTRICT LAKHIMPUR ASSAM 3:SHRI DIGANTA GOGOI SON OF MANIKANTA GOGOI PRESENTLY RESIDING AT TUENSANG BAZAR AREA TUENSANG NAGALAND ALTERNATE ADDRESS AT KADAM GOHAIN GAON P. O KADAM P. S BOGINADI DISTRICT LAKHIMPUR ASSAM 4:SHRI ROBIN KONWAR SON OF PADMESWAR KONWAR Page No. # 4/6 RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KADAM GOHAIN GAON P. O KADAM P.
S BOGINADI DISTRICT LAKHIMPUR ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : TAYONGCHUBA Advocate for : appearing for SMTI. TARAMAI GOGOI AND 3 ORS Linked Case : MACApp. /2/2023 THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER DIMAPUR NAGALAND VERSUS SMTI. TARAMAI GOGOI AND 3 ORS. W/O SHRI DIGANTA GOGOI PRESENTLY RESIDING AT TUENSANG BAZAR AREA TUENSANG NAGALAND ALTERNATE ADDRESS AT KADAM GOHAIN GAON P. O KADAM P. S BOGINADI DISTRICT LAKHIMPUR ASSAM 2:SHRI DIPEN GOGOI SON OF SHRI DIGANTA GOGOI Page No. # 5/6 TUENSANG NAGALAND ALTERNATE ADDRESS AT KADAM GOHAIN GAON P. O KADAM P. S BOGINADI DISTRICT LAKHIMPUR ASSAM 3:SHRI DIGANTA GOGOI SON MANIKANTA GOGOI PRESENTLY RESIDING AT TUENSANG BAZAR AREA TUENSANG NAGALAND ALTERNATE ADDRESS AT KADAM GOHAIN GAON P. O KADAM P. S BOGINADI DISTRICT LAKHIMPUR ASSAM 4:SHRI ROBIN KONWAR SON OF PADMESWAR KONWAR RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KADAM GOHAIN GAON P. O KADAM P. S BOGINADI DISTRICT LAKHIMPUR ASSAM (OWNER OF MOTOR CYCLE B/REGD. NO.
AS-07-D/3382) ------------ Advocate for : TAYONGCHUBA Advocate for : B. N. SARMAH appearing for SMTI. TARAMAI GOGOI AND 3 ORS. Page No. # 6/6 BEFORE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER Date : 22-02-2024 Heard learned counsel Mr. Tayongchuba for the applicant and learned counsel Mr. Imtiwapang for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Notice has been served to respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 4 is not represented. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has filed this application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 108 days in preferring the appeal. The judgment and order was passed on 24. 01. 2023 by the learned Member, MACT, Tuensang, Nagaland in MAC Case No. 4/2021. It is submitted that the delay was not due to negligence and laches on the part of the applicant. It is submitted that copies were furnished on a much later date to the applicant and he could not prefer the appeal within the period of limitation.
There was no negligence on the part of the applicant and the applicant has shown sufficient cause for preferring the appeal after 108 days. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant and considering all aspects this petition is allowed and delay is condoned. No order as to costs. IA is disposed of. Sd/- JUDGE Comparing Assistant
Source: Gauhati High Court. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.