Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/5 vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. ... on 28 April, 2021
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010075812021
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/997/2021
IMRANA BEGUM AND 5 ORS.
W/O. LATE ABDUL RAHIM @ ANG RAHIM @ ABDUR
2: MD. ABDUL WAHID
S/O- LATE ABDUL RAHIM @ ANG RAHIM @ ABDUR
3: MISS SABANA PARBIN
D/O- LATE ABDUL RAHIM @ ANG RAHIM @ ABDUR
4: MISS SUHADA BEGUM
D/O- LATE ABDUL RAHIM @ ANG RAHIM @ ABDUR
5: MISS SADIANA PARBIN
D/O- LATE ABDUL RAHIM @ ANG RAHIM @ ABDUR
6: MUSSTT. SOMSUN NESSA
D/O- LATE MOTACHIN ALI
ALL ARE PERMANENT RESIDENT OF VILL.- SHIVERCHAK
P.O. SHIVERCHAK
P.S. BADARPUR
DIST.- KARIMGANJ
ASSAM
PIN- 788806 AND ALL ARE PRESENT RESIDENT OF VILL.- DIGOR SRIKONA
P.O. SRIKONA
P.S. SILCHAR
DIST.- CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN- 788026
VERSUS
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND 2 ORS.
HAVING ITS REGD. AND HEAD OFFICE AT 24 WHITES ROAD, CHENNAI-
600014 AND ONE OF THE REGIONAL OFFICES AT M.S.S. PATH (G.S. ROAD),
Page No.# 2/5
DISPUR, GHY- 5
2:BISWAJIT SARKAR
PROPRIETOR OF M/S. RATNA TRANSPORT
NEW COLONY
PANDU
GUWAHATI
ASSAM
PIN- 781012.
3:PAI HAZONG
S/O- SRI CHANDRA HAZONG
R/O- VILL.- KADAM HAZONG GAON
P.O. KADAM
P.S. BOGINADI
DIST.- LAKHIMPUR
ASSAM
PIN- 787032
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M TALUKDAR
Advocate for the Respondent : MR. A J SAIKIA
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY
ORDER
28.04.2021
Heard Mr. M. Talukdar, learned counsel for the applicants/respondent nos. 1
to 6 and Mr. A.J. Saikia, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 1/appellant.
2. The connected MACApp. no. 270/2020 has been preferred under Section
173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 ('the M.V. Act', for short) against a judgment
and award dated 13.09.2019 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Cachar at Silchar ('the Tribunal', for short) in MAC Case no. 1091/2014,
Page No.# 3/5
preferred by the applicants as claimants, under Section 166 of the M.V. Act.
3. By the said judgment and award dated 13.09.2019, the learned Tribunal
had awarded an amount of Rs. 23,38,000/- as compensation along with interest
@ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till realization
and the same has been made payable by the opposite party no. 1/appellant.
4. While preferring the said appeal, MACApp. no. 270/2020 by the opposite
party no. 1 as the appellant, an interlocutory application, I.A.(C) no. 1943/2020
was preferred by the opposite party no. 1/appellant for stay of the operation of
the judgment and award dated 13.09.2019 passed by the learned Tribunal in
MAC Case no. 1091/2014.
5. This Court by an order dated 25.11.2020, had disposed of the said
interlocutory application, I.A.(C) no. 1943/2020 and it was observed that the
operation of the judgment and award dated 13.09.2019 passed in MAC Case no.
1091/2014 shall remain suspended subject to deposit of 75% of the awarded
amount with the Registry of this Court within 6 (six) weeks from 25.11.2020.
6. Pursuant to the said order dated 25.11.2020, the opposite party no.
1/appellant has deposited an amount of Rs. 17,53,500/- with the Registry.
7. By this application, the applicants/respondent nos. 1 to 6 have prayed for a
direction to allow them to withdraw the said amount of Rs. 17,53,500/-
deposited by the opposite party no. 1/appellant.
8. Mr. Saikia, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 1/appellant has
Page No.# 4/5
submitted that the connected appeal has been preferred challenging the
quantum of compensation as according to the opposite party no. 1/appellant, an
amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- is payable to the applicants/respondent nos. 1 to 6.
The said contention has been opposed by Mr. Talukdar by submitting that the
applicants/respondent nos. 1 to 6 are entitled to higher amount and the
connected appeal has no merits. Mr. Saikia has further submitted that apart
from challenge on quantum the appeal has been preferred on the ground that
the deceased had allegedly died in the incident due to electrocution and
ultimately, it might be held that the opposite party no. 1/appellant was not
responsible to make payment of compensation. He has, thus, submitted that
any amount that may be released in favour of the applicants shall be subject to
furnishing of an indemnity bond.
9. Upon considering the rival submissions made by the parties, this Court is
of the considered view that at this stage, it would be appropriate to allow the
applicants/respondent nos. 1 to 6 to receive an amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- out
of the total amount of Rs. 17,53,500/- deposited by the opposite party no.
1/appellant.
10. Accordingly, it is directed that an amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- be released in
favour of the applicant no. 1 on behalf of all the applicants as the applicant nos.
2 to 5 are minors and applicant no. 6 is the divorced sister of the deceased. At
the time of such disbursement, the applicant no. 1 shall submit a letter of
authorization from applicant no. 6. The aforesaid amount shall be released upon
due identification of the applicant no. 1 by her engaged counsel.
11. Having perused the grounds on which the connected appeal has been
Page No.# 5/5
preferred, it is further directed that the applicant no. 1 to 6 shall also furnish an
indemnity bond in this regard prior to release of the aforesaid amount.
12. The application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
