Sanjit Ray vs Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 6846 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Sanjit Ray vs Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. ... on 29 August, 2025

                                                                       Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010097602025




                                                                undefined

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

                                  Case No. : MACApp./295/2025

            SANJIT RAY,
            S/O SUNIL CHANDRA RAY, R/O VILL. LAKHPUR TOWN - BAMUNPARA,
            W/NO 2, P.O. AND P.S. LAKHIPUR, DIST. GOALPARA, ASSAM.



            VERSUS

            ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND 2 ORS
            REPRESENTED BY THE BRANCH MANAGER, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 3RD
            FLOOR, MADHAV TOWER, G.S. ROAD, RUKMINIGAON, GUWAHATI 781022

            2:MOHIR UDDIN AHMED

             S/O DELOWAR HUSSAIN
             R/O VILL. KATARIHARA
             P.O. KATARIHARA
             P.S. LAKHIPUR
             DIST. GOALPARA
             ASSAM
             PIN 783132

            3:MINARUL ISLAM

             S/O MOJIBAR RAHMAN
             R/O VILL. SHILAPANI
             P.O. AND P.S. LAKHIPUR
             DIST. GOALPARA
             ASSAM
             PIN 78312

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. M M ZAMAN,

Advocate for the Respondent : ,
                                                                        Page No.# 2/3




                                BEFORE
                    HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG

                                     ORDER

29.08.2025

Heard Mr. M. M. Zaman, learned counsel for the appellant.

This appeal, filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenges the judgment and award dated 26.03.2025, passed by the learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Goalpara, in MAC Case No. 282/2022, seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded.

Admit.

Issue notice to the respondents, returnable within 4 (four) weeks.

Mr. Zaman, learned counsel for the appellant, has submitted that respondent Nos. 2 and 3, being the owner and driver of the offending vehicle, are not necessary parties to this case. Therefore, he prays for the striking of the names of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 from the memo of appeal.

Prayer is allowed.

Registry is directed to strike off the names of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 from the memo of appeal.

The learned counsel for the appellant shall take steps for service of notice upon respondent No.1 by registered post with A/D as well as by usual process within one week from today.

Page No.# 3/3

Also, call for the Trial Court Record.

List the matters after 4 (four) weeks.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant