Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Musst. Akiban Begum And 7 Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 3980 Gua

                                                                         Page No.# 1/2

GAHC010205292022




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

                                Case No. : MACApp./742/2022

             ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD
             Address - HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT ORIENTAL HOUSE A 25/27
             ASAF ALI ROAD, NEW DELHI 110002 AND REGIONAL OFFICE AT
             GUWAHATI-7, REPRESENTED BY THE REGIONAL MANAGER



             VERSUS

             MUSST. AKIBAN BEGUM and 7 ORS,
             Address - W/O LATE ROSUN ALI



Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR S DUTTA

Advocate for the Respondent : MS. J PAUL



                                           BEFORE
                    HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI
                                           ORDER

30.09.2022 Heard Mr S Dutta, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company.

Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2, and 3 and learned counsel for the respondent No. 6 are present.

The appellant/Insurance Company has preferred the appeal under Section 173 of Page No.# 2/2

the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Award dated 22.12.2016, passed by the learned Member, MACT, Cachar, Silchar, Assam, in MAC Case No. 1672 of 2011.

The appeal is admitted.

As the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and the learned counsel for the respondent No. 6 have entered their appearance, no formal notice is necessary.

However, requisite extra copies of the petition be furnished to the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 6.

Issue notice upon respondent Nos. 4 and 5, by registered post with A/D as well as by usual process, returnable within 4 (four) weeks.

Steps be taken within a week from today.

Regarding the respondent Nos. 7 and 8, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that respondent Nos. 7 and 8 are the driver and owner of the offending vehicle, respectively, and as they have preferred the appeal only on the quantum of compensation, so their presence is not necessary in the proceeding and as such, he has prayed that the names of respondent Nos. 7 and 8 be struck off from the array of respondents.

Considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant, let the names of respondent Nos. 7 and 8 be struck off from the array of respondents in the Cause Title of the appeal, at the risk of the appellant.

Registry is directed to do the needful, in this regard.

Call for the LCR.

List the matter accordingly, after 4 (four) weeks.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant