Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/4 vs Kamala Tanti Gohain And 6 Ors on 10 March, 2023
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010030012023
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : MACApp./64/2023
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
(A CENTRAL GOVT. UNDERTAKING) HAVING ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT
GUWAHATI, G.S. ROAD, ULUBARI, GUWAHATI- 781007 REP. BY THE
DEPUTY MANAGER, GAUHATI REGIONAL OFFICE, ULUBARI, GUWAHTI-
781005.
VERSUS
KAMALA TANTI GOHAIN AND 6 ORS.
W/O LATE LUTU GOHAIN,
VILL.- SARAIPANI SAH BAGICHA NO.- 2 LINE (GOHAINJAN),
P.O.- MAHIMBARI,
P.S.- BORHOLA,
DIST.- JORHAT, ASSAM, PIN- 785631.
2:BHABESH KUMAR GOHAIN
REP. BY RESPONDENT NO. 1
S/O LATE LUTU GOHAIN
VILL.- SARAIPANI SAH BAGICHA NO.- 2 LINE (GOHAINJAN)
P.O.- MAHIMBARI
P.S.- BORHOLA
DIST.- JORHAT
ASSAM
PIN- 785631.
3:PAKHILA GOHAIN
REP. BY RESPONDENT NO. 1
D/O LATE LUTU GOHAIN
VILL.- SARAIPANI SAH BAGICHA NO.- 2 LINE (GOHAINJAN)
P.O.- MAHIMBARI
P.S.- BORHOLA
Page No.# 2/4
DIST.- JORHAT
ASSAM
PIN- 785631.
4:APURBA GOHAIN
REP. BY RESPONDENT NO. 1
S/O LATE LUTU GOHAIN
VILL.- SARAIPANI SAH BAGICHA NO.- 2 LINE (GOHAINJAN)
P.O.- MAHIMBARI
P.S.- BORHOLA
DIST.- JORHAT
ASSAM
PIN- 785631.
5:SABITRI GOHAIN
REP. BY RESPONDENT NO. 1
M/O LATE LUTU GOHAIN
VILL.- SARAIPANI SAH BAGICHA NO.- 2 LINE (GOHAINJAN)
P.O.- MAHIMBARI
P.S.- BORHOLA
DIST.- JORHAT
ASSAM
PIN- 785631.
6:AJIT URANG
S/O PANIRAM URANG
VILL.- SALAGURI MAJGAON
P.O.- MADHAPUR
P.S.- TITABAR
DIST.- JORHAT
ASSAM
PIN- 785630.
7:DHANTI SAIKIA
S/O UTPAL SAIKIA
VILL.- DANGDHARA
P.O.- MADHAPUR
P.S.- TITABAR
DIST.- JORHAT
ASSAM
PIN- 785630
Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. R D MOZUMDAR
Page No.# 3/4
Advocate for the Respondent :
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA
ORDER
Date : 10.03.2023
Heard Ms. R. D. Mozumdar, learned counsel for the appellant.
This is an appeal preferred by the Insurance company against the
judgment dated 09.11.2022 passed in MAC Case No. 876/2016 by the MACT No.
1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that
the tribunal has rendered a finding that the offending vehicle did not have a
valid permit as required under the Motor vehicles Act read with the Rules.
Consequently, liability, if any, ought to have been imposed upon the owner and
the driver. Such finding is also evident from the judgment itself that the tribunal
directing the Insurance company to make the payment and thereafter recover
from the owner and the driver. The tribunal directed an amount of
Rs.16,20,200/- along with an interest of 6% per annum from the date of filing
of the claim petition i.e. 25.04.2016. Being aggrieved the present appeal has
been filed.
The learned counsel for the appellant has been heard. Pleadings on record
have been perused. It is seen that the tribunal has accepted that the offending
vehicle did not have a valid permit. However, direction has been issued to the
Insurance company to make the payment and thereafter recover the amount
from the driver and the owner.
Accordingly let the appeal be admitted subject to payment of statutory
deposit which is stated to have been made by the learned counsel for the
Page No.# 4/4
petitioner.
Call for the records of MAC Case No. 876/2016 from MACT No. 1, Kamrup
(M), Guwahati.
Steps on the opposite party by registered post with A/D within one week
from today.
List this matter after receipt of the LCR.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
