ORDER

17.11.2021 Date :

Heard Mr. S. Borgohain, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. M.

Talukdar, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2/claimant.

Mr. Borgohain, learned counsel for the applicant, at the outset submits that opposite party Nos.2 & 3, who are the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle respectively are not a necessary party, as the MAC appeal has been filed challenging quantum of the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal.

Mr. Borgohain, learned counsel prays for striking off the names of the opposite party Nos.2 and 3 from the array of the respondents.

As prayed for by Mr. Borgohain, learned counsel for the applicant, let the names of opposite party Nos.2 and 3 be struck off from the array of the respondents at the risk of the applicant/appellant.

This is an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with Section 173(1) proviso of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988(as amended) for condonation of delay of 355 days in filing the connected MAC appeal, which appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.03.2017, passed by the learned Member, MACT, Nagaon in MAC Case No.132/2015.

The reason for delay of 355 days in filing the c