Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Dondi Dhor Borah And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 4782 Gua

                                                                     Page No.# 1/2

GAHC010230222022




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

                                Case No. : MACApp./799/2022

            SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
            0500-E/8, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SITAPURA, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN-
            302022 AND HAVING A BRANCH OFFICE AT B.R. ARCADE, 3RD FLOOR, 21
            JANAPATH, ULUBARI, GUWAHATI- 780507.



            VERSUS

            DONDI DHOR BORAH AND ANR.
            S/O JAGESWAR BORAH,
            VILL.- HOUSE NO. 7,
            RUPALIM PATH, BELTOLA,
            P.S. BASISTHA, DIST.- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, PIN- 781028.

            2:ANURAG DAS
             S/O PARESH DAS

            VILL.- SATRA BARADI

            P.S.- BARPETA

            DIST.- BARPETA
            ASSAM
            PIN- 781301

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. R GOSWAMI

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

                                     BEFORE
                      HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA

                                               ORDER

05.12.2022 Heard Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant.

This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988, as amended is directed against the Judgment & Award dated 26.08.2022 passed by the learned Member, MACT, No.2, Kamrup(M), in MAC Case No.36/2017, filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

From the order dated 18.11.2022, it reveals that Mr. G. Jalan, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 had entered appearance on behalf of the respondent No.1, who is also the caveator. However, the name of the counsel is not shown in the causelist.

Mr. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the respondent No. 2 is the owner/driver of the vehicle and since the appeal is only for quantum, therefore, the respondent No.2 is not a necessary party, and hence, prays for striking out the name of the respondent No.2 from the cause title of the Memo of Appeal.

Prayer is allowed.

Accordingly, the name of the respondent No.2 be struck off from the cause title of the Memo Appeal at the risk of the appellant.

Considering the submissions of the learned Advocates of both sides, the matter is admitted for hearing.

Call for the LCRs from the learned Court below.

List the matter after 4(four) weeks, on a date to be fixed by the Registry.

Registry to reflect the name of Mr. Mr. G. Jalan, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 in the causelist on the next date fixed.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant