Page No.# 1/3 vs Upendra Borgohain And 2 Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 316 Gua

                                                                  Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010189712020




                       THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                         Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/2304/2020

         PREMA CHUTIA CHETIA @ PREMA CHUTIA GOGOI AND ANR.
         W/O. LATE NITYANANDA CHETIA (MOTHER OF THE DECEASED),
         R/O. VILL. KODOMONI , SOUTH KHALIHAMARI, PRAGATI PATH, P.S.
         DIBRUGARH, DIST. DIBRUGARH, ASSAM

         2: MITHU CHETIA
          D/O LATE NITYANANDA CHETIA (UNMARRIED SISTER OF THE
         DECEASED)
         RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KODOMONI
          SOUTH KHALIHAMARI
          PRAGATI PATH
         PS DIBRUGARH
         ASSA

         VERSUS

         UPENDRA BORGOHAIN AND 2 ORS.
         S/O. SRI P. BORGOHAIN, R/O. VILL. MAHPUWALIMORA, MOHANAGHAT,
         P.S. BARBARUAH, DIST. DIBRUGARH, ASSAM, PIN- 786007, OWNER OF
         THE VEHICLE NO. AS 06/AC-2567

         2:BIJOY CHANDRA
          S/O LATE HARILAL CHANDRA
         R/O VILL KADAMONI KALIBARI ROAD
          PS AND DIST DIBRUGARH
         ASSAM 786001
         DRIVER OF VEHICLE NO. AS-06/AC-2567

         3:NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
          REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF REGIONAL MANAGER REGIONAL OFFICE
         AT GS ROAD
          BHANGAGARH
          GUWAHATI
          DIST KAMRUP METRO
                                                                                   Page No.# 2/3

             ASSAM
            781005
            INSURER OF VEHICLE NO. AS-06/AC-2567
            POLICY NO 200301/31/12/6300003784
            VALID FROM 15.12.2012 TO 14.12.201

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR D MONDAL

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. R K BHATRA




                                    BEFORE
                    HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA

                                              ORDER

Date : 01-02-2021

Heard Mr. D. Mondal, the learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. R.K. Bhatra, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 1.

By this application filed under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC, the applicants have stated that during the pendency of the connected appeal, the applicant no. 1, who is the mother of the deceased has settled her claim with the opposite party no. 3 at an enhanced compensation amount of Rs.10,25,000/- excluding the amount already paid by the opposite party no. 3 pursuant to the judgment and award dated 09.04.2018 passed by the learned Member, MACT-cum-Additional District Judge No. 3 (FTC), Kamrup (M), Guwahati in MAC Case No. 1044 of 2013 with interest accrued thereon. The said out of court settlement between the applicant no. 1 and the opposite party no. 1 is not found contrary to the law in force. As per copy of consent memo dated 18.06.2020 annexed as Annexure-A and on affirmation of the said settlement by the learned counsel for the applicants, this application stands allowed only so far as the applicant no. 1 is concerned.

The reason for accepting the settlement qua the applicant no. 1 is because learned counsel for the opposite party has produced the original copy of the letter dated 11.09.2020 requesting the learned counsel for the applicants to initiate filing of a joint compromise petition and enclosed therewith is the original consent memo. The said letter dated Page No.# 3/3

11.09.2020 and consent memo dated 16.08.2020 is made a part of record of the connected appeal. The said consent letter is not found to be signed by the applicant no. 2. Moreover, though as per the cause title of this application, the same is for both the applicants, but the applicant no. 2 has not sworn any affidavit in support of this application and moreover, there is no statement in this application or in the affidavit sworn by applicant no. 1 in support of this application that the applicant no. 1 is the attorney of applicant no. 2 or that she has been specifically authorized by the applicant no. 2 to settle the claim as against the share, if any, of the applicant no. 2.

Therefore, this I.A. stands allowed only in respect of the applicant no. 1.

In view of the order passed today, the application stands allowed accepting the compromise between the applicant no. 1 and the opposite party no. 3.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant