Icici Lombard General Insurance ... vs Faijul [email protected] [email protected] ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 4774 Gua

                                                                    Page No.# 1/2

GAHC010246212022




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

                                Case No. : MACApp./824/2022

            ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LID.
            HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AND HEAD OFFICE AT ICICI BANK
            TOWERS, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, MUMBAI 400051, ITS ZONAL
            OFFICE AT APEEJAY HOUSE, 15 PARK STREET, 7TH FLOOR, KOLKATTA-
            700016 AND A BRANCH OFFICE A KAMAKHYA TOWER 3RD FLOOR,
            OFFICE NO. 305 AND 306, G. S. ROAD, GUWAHATI 781005, ASSAM



            VERSUS

            FAIJUL [email protected] [email protected] AND 2 ORS.
            S/O MD. AHMED @ AHAMMED ALI, RESIDENT OF KAKATIGAON, PS
            KAMPUR, DIST NAGAON, ASSAM, 782426

            2:MR. RONGBONG KRAMSA
             S/O BARIM KRAMSA

            RESIDENT OF RONGMILI
            PS DIPHU
            DIST KARBI ANGLONG
            ASSAM 782460

            3:MISS CLAUDIA TERONPI
             D/O SRI PULIN TERON

            RESIDENT OF RUKASEN (NEAR BASIC TRAINING CENTRE) PS DIPHU
            DIST KARBI ANGLONG
            ASSAM 78246

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. R GOSWAMI

Advocate for the Respondent :
                                                                         Page No.# 2/2




                                     BEFORE
                      HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA

                                      ORDER

Date : --05.12.2022

Heard Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant. Perused the case record and judgment passed by the learned Member, MACT No. 2, Kamrup (M), Guwahati.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that it is an appeal only for quantum and the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 is the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle and are not the necessary party in this appeal and has prayed to struck off the names of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 from the cause title of the memo of appeal. Considering the submission of learned counsel for the appellant, the names of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 be struck off from the cause title of the memo of appeal, at the risk of the appellant. Considering the nature of appeal, the same has been admitted for hearing.

Issue notice to the respondent No. 1, through registered post with A/D as well as by usual process, returnable within 4(four) weeks. Call for the LCR.

List the matter after 6(six) weeks on a date to be fixed by the Registry.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant