Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/17 vs Tapashi Roy And 5 Ors on 18 February, 2025
Author: Devashis Baruah
Bench: Devashis Baruah
Page No.# 1/17
GAHC010091602020
2025:GAU-AS:1833
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : MACApp./176/2020
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT ORIENTAL HOUSE, A-25/27, ASAF ALI
ROAD, NEW DELHI-110002 AND REGIONAL OFFICE AT GUWAHATI-7, REP.
BY REGIONAL MANAGER
VERSUS
TAPASHI ROY AND 5 ORS
W/O LT. BIRENDRA CHANDRA ROY, R/O RETIRED COLONY,
(RAMKRISHNA PALLY), P.O. P.S. BADARPUR, DIST. KARIMGANJ, ASSAM
2:BORNALI ROY
D/O LT. BIRENDRA CHANDRA ROY
R/O RETIRED COLONY
(RAMKRISHNA PALLY)
P.O. P.S. BADARPUR
DIST. KARIMGANJ
ASSAM
3:MISHON RANJAN ROY
S/O LT. BIRENDRA CHANDRA ROY
R/O RETIRED COLONY
(RAMKRISHNA PALLY)
P.O. P.S. BADARPUR
DIST. KARIMGANJ
ASSAM
4:PARTHA ROY
S/O LT. RAJENDRA LAL ROY
R/O STATION ROAD
(NEAR RAILWAY GATE)
KARIMGANJ TOWN
Page No.# 2/17
P.O. P.S. AND DIST. KARIMGANJ
ASSAM
5:ABDUL RAHIM BARBHUIYA
S/O LT. S ALI BORBHUIYA
SIDDESHWAR
P.O. KATIGORAH
DIST. CACHAR
ASSAM
(OWNER OF VEHICLE BEARING REGD. NO. 4160 (TRUCK)
6:RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
REP. BY BRANCH MANAGER
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD
ANIL PLAZA
5TH FLOOR
ABC
G.S. ROAD
GUWAHATI-781005
ASSAM
ALTERNATIVE ADDRESS- RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD.
DIHONG ARCADE
4 TH FLOOR
ABC G.S. ROAD
GUWAHATI-781005
ASSAM (INSURANCE OF VEHICLE BEARING REGD. NO. 4160 TRUCK
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S DUTTA, MR S DUTTA,MR. S DUTTA
Advocate for the Respondent : MR S DAS, MS S DEV(R-4),MR. M DUTTA(R-4),MS. P
BORTHAKUR,MS. M SAIKIA,MR. R GOSWAMI,MR. S C BISWAS(R1-R3),MR S HOQUE
Linked Case : MACApp./259/2020
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT ORIENTAL HOUSE
A-25/27
ASAF ALI ROAD
NEW DELHI- 110002 AND REGIONAL OFFICE AT GUWAHATI-7
REP. BY THE REGIONAL MANAGER.
VERSUS
Page No.# 3/17
SANJIB MALAKAR AND 3 ORS.
S/O- SUMANTA MALAKAR
VILL.- BAGADAR (PATHARKANDI)
P.O. AND P.S. PATHARKANDI
DIST.- KARIMGANJ
ASSAM- 788004.
2:PARTHA ROY
S/O- LATE RAJENDRA LAL ROY
R/O- STATION ROAD (NEAR RAILWAY GATE) KARIMGANJ TOWN
P.O.
P..S AND DIST.- KARIMGANJ
ASSAM- 788001.
3:ABDUL RAHIM BARBHUIYA
S/O- LATE S. ALI BARBHUIYA
SIDDESHWAR
P.O. KATIGORAH
DIST.- CACHAR
ASSAM- 788101. (OWNER OF VEHICLE BEARING REGD. NO. AS-11/AC-4160
(TRUCK).
4:RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
REP. BY BRANCH MANAGER
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
ANIL PLAZA
5TH FLOOR
ABC
G.S. ROAD
GUWAHATI- 781005
ASSAM AND ALTERNATIVE ADDRESS- RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE
CO. LTD. DIHONG ARCADE
4TH FLOOR
A.B.C.
G.S. ROAD
GUWAHATI- 781005
ASSAM (INSURER OF VEHICLE BEARING REGD. NO. AS-11/AC-4160
(TRUCK).
------------
Advocate for : MR SISHIR DUTTA
Advocate for : MR S HOQUE appearing for SANJIB MALAKAR AND 3 ORS.
Linked Case : MACApp./288/2020
Page No.# 4/17
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT ORIENTAL HOUSE
A-25/27
ASAF ALI ROAD
NEW DELHI- 110002 AND REGIONAL OFFICE AT GUWAHATI-7
REP. BY THE REGIONAL MANAGER.
VERSUS
BANI RANI ROY @ NAMASUDRA AND 3 ORS.
W/O- BABUL CHANDRA ROY
VILL.- BAGADAR (PATHERKANDI)
P.O. AND P.S. PATHERKANDI
DIST.- KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
2:PARTHA ROY
S/O- LATE RAJENDRA LAL ROY
R/O- STATION ROAD (NEAR RAILWAY GATE) KARIMGANJ TOWN
P.O.
P.S. AND DIST.- KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
3:ABDUL RAHIM BARBHUIYA
S/O- LATE S. ALI BORBHUIYA
SIDDESHWAR
P.O. KATIGORAH
DIST.- CACHAR
ASSAM. (OWNER OF THE VEHICLE BEARING REGD. NO. 4160 (TRUCK).
4:RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
REP. BY BRANCH MANAGER
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CI. LTD.
ANIL PLAZA
5TH FLOOR
ABC
G.S. ROAD
GUWAHATI- 781005
ASSAM AND ALTERNATIVE ADDRESS- RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE
CO. LTD.
DIHONG ARCADE
4TH FLOOR
A.B.C
G.S. ROAD
GUWAHATI- 781005
ASSAM. (INSURER OF THE VEHICLE BEARING REGD. NO. 4160(TRUCK).
Page No.# 5/17
------------
Advocate for : MR SISHIR DUTTA
Advocate for : MR S HOQUE appearing for BANI RANI ROY @ NAMASUDRA
AND 3 ORS.
Linked Case : MACApp./262/2020
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT ORIENTAL HOUSE
A-25/27
ASAF ALI ROAD
NEW DELHI- 110002 AND REGIONAL OFFICE AT GUWAHATI-7
REP. BY THE REGIONAL MANAGER.
VERSUS
BABUL CHANDRA ROY AND 3 ORS.
S/O- LATE SUSHANTA ROY
VILL.- BAGADHAR (PATHARKANDI)
DIST.- KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
2:PARTHA ROY
S/O- LATE RAJENDRA LAL ROY
R/O- STATION ROAD (NEAR RAILWAY GATE) KARIMGANJ TOWN
P.O.
P.S. AND DIST.- KARIMGANJ
ASSAM.
3:ABDUL RAHIM BARBHUIYA
S/O- LATE S. ALI BARBHUIYA
SIDDESHWAR
P.O. KATIGORAH
DIST.- CACHAR
ASSAM. (OWNER OF VEHICLE BEARING REGD. NO. AS-11/AC-4160
(TRUCK).
4:RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
REP. BY BRANCH MANAGER
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
ANIL PLAZA
5TH FLOOR
ABC
G.S. ROAD
GUWAHATI- 781005
Page No.# 6/17
ASSAM AND ALTERNATIVE ADRESS- RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE
CO. LTD.
DIHONG ARCADE
4TH FLOOR
A.B.C.
G.S. ROAD
GUWAHATI- 781005
ASSAM.
------------
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. S. Dutta, Senior Advocate
Mr. S. Dutta, Advocate
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S.C. Biswas, Advocate
Mr. M. Dutta, Advocate
Ms. M. Saikia, Advocate
Mr. A.J. Saikia, Advocate
Date of Hearing : 18.02.2025
Date of Judgment : 18.02.2025
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
Heard Mr. S. Dutta, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S.
Dutta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in the batch
of appeals taken up for consideration. Mr. S. C. Biswas, the learned counsel
appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 in MAC App./176/2020.
Mr. M. Dutta, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent No. 4
in MAC App./176/2020; respondent No. 2 in MAC App./259/2020;
respondent No. 2 in MAC App./262/2020 and respondent No. 2 in MAC
App./288/2020. Ms. M. Saikia, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the
respondent No. 6 in MAC App./176/2020. Mr. A.J. Saikia, the learned counsel
Page No.# 7/17
appears on behalf of the respondent No. 4 in MAC App./262/2020.
2. All the 4 (four) appeals are taken up together for adjudication, taking into
account that all these appeals are in relation to a single accident wherein 4
(four) separate claim proceedings were filed. The 4(four) appeals arises out of
separate judgments and awards dated 23.12.2019 in MAC Case No. 19/2015,
MAC Case No. 79/2015, MAC Case No. 80/2015 and MAC Case No. 81/2015.
3. Mr. S. Dutta, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants urged that the judgment and award which are impugned in the
instant batch of 4 (four) appeals are required to be interfered with primarily on
two grounds. The said grounds are:
(i). The vehicle in question was a private vehicle which was used for a
commercial purpose and further there were more occupants than
permitted and as such, as there was a violation to the terms of the
insurance by the owner, for which, the learned Tribunal erred in law and
facts in saddling the entire liability upon the Appellant Insurance Company.
(ii). The vehicle that is the Bolero Vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-01-
BD-4444 was the vehicle registered with the appellant company. The said
vehicle dashed against the truck bearing registration No. AS-11-AC-4160.
The said truck was standing on the left side of the road wherein the truck
could not have been parked. Under such circumstances, the learned
Tribunal ought to have proportionately shared the liability by applying the
principles of contributory negligence.
4. To ascertain, as to whether, the two grounds of objections so submitted by
Page No.# 8/17
the Appellant Insurance Company merits, this Court finds it relevant to briefly
take note of the facts leading to filing of the instant appeals.
5. The claimants in MAC Case No. 81/2015, MAC Case No. 79/2015 and MAC
Case No. 80/2015 along with one Birendra Chandra Roy were travelling in a
Bolero Vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-01-BD-4444 on 03.11.2014. The said
Bolero Vehicle dashed against a standing truck bearing Registration No. AS-11-
AC-4160 in a village named Gumrah under Katigorah Police Station in Cachar
district. The said Birendra Chandra Roy succumbed to his injuries in the said
accident whereas the claimants in MAC Case No. 79/2015, MAC Case No.
80/2015 and MAC Case No. 81/2015 suffered injuries. Pursuant thereto, these 4
(four) MAC claim proceedings were initiated. On the death of Late Birendra
Chandra Roy, his wife and his children were the claimants in MAC Case No.
19/2015. The other persons who were injured filed MAC Case Nos. 79/2015,
80/2015 and 81/2015. All these proceedings were instituted before the Court of
the learned District Judge-cum-Member, M.A.C.T., Karimganj at Karimganj (now
Sribhumi) (hereinafter referred to as, "the learned Tribunal"). Pursuant to the
filing of the claim proceedings, notices were issued to the owners of the Bolero
Vehicle and the Truck as well as the respective Insurance Companies in respect
to the Bolero Vehicle and the Truck. It is relevant to take note of that the
Appellant Insurance Company is the insurer of the Bolero Vehicle in question
whereas Reliance India General Insurance Company Limited is the insurer of the
Truck in question.
6. The Appellant Insurance Company filed their written statements in respect
to all the claim proceedings wherein various preliminary objections were taken.
In the said written statement, at paragraph No. 5, it was categorically admitted
Page No.# 9/17
by the Appellant Insurance Company that the driver of the truck had no fault. It
was also mentioned in the said paragraph that the Bolero Vehicle which was
admittedly hired by the deceased and the injured was a private vehicle and the
insurance policy debarred the owner to use the vehicle under "Hire or
Reward" and as such, it was alleged that the claimants were not entitled to get
any compensation from the Appellant Insurance Company. It is further seen in
paragraph No. 13, the Appellant Insurance Company further took the plea that
the owner plied his private vehicle on Hire basis, which is in gross violation of
the policy condition.
7. The owner of the vehicle i.e. the Bolero Vehicle bearing Registration No.
AS-01-BD-4444 submitted his written statement wherein it was mentioned that
the vehicle Bolero ZLX bearing Registration No. AS-01-BD-4444 was duly insured
with the Appellant Insurance Company vide policy No. 322600/31/2014/12353
covering the period from 00.00 on 15.02.2014 to mid night of 14.02.2015 and
the policy was in force on the date of the alleged accident. It was also
mentioned that the driver of the vehicle had possessed a valid Driving License
vide No. F/4273/KXJ/02 issued by the District Transport Officer, Karimganj (now
Sribhumi) which was Valid up to 19.12.2015 and was driving the vehicle at the
material time. It was further mentioned in the said written statement that the
occupants of the vehicle were returning from Guwahati and when the said
Bolero Vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-01-BD-4444 was crossing at Gumrah
suddenly another truck was returning from the opposite side with high speed
and collision took place.
8. The owner of the Truck bearing Registration No. AS-11-AC 4160 filed the
written statements stating inter alia that the Truck in question was standing on
Page No.# 10/17
the extreme left side of the road and as such, there was no rash or negligent
driving on the part of the Truck in question which led to the accident. It was
also mentioned that the driver of the offending vehicle bearing Registration No.
AS-01-BD-4444 possessed a fake driving license and also he was not an expert
driver and as such, the claimants have not made the said driver a party in the
claim case.
9. The Reliance India General Insurance Company Limited also submitted
written statements claiming inter alia that the said Insurance Company was not
liable for payment of any amount taking into account that it was not the fault of
the vehicle which was insured with Reliance India General Insurance Company
Limited.
10. On the basis of the pleadings, issues were framed by the learned Tribunal
in the 4 (four) claim proceedings. The issues in all the cases were similar in
content. The difference however is that in MAC Case No. 19/2015, the issue was
on the question of death whereas in the other claim proceedings the issue was
on the question of injury. Under such circumstances, this Court reproduces the 4
(four) issues as framed in MAC Case No. 19/2015 herein below:
"1. Whether the alleged accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of
the vehicle in question and death of the deceased occurred in the accident?
2. Whether the vehicle was duly insured with respective opposite party Insurance
Company and the Insurance policy was valid at the time of alleged accident?
3. Whether the claimant(s) are entitled to any compensation, if so, to what extent
and by whom payable?
4. To what other relief/reliefs the claimant(s) are entitled in law and equity?"
Page No.# 11/17
11. This Court finds it relevant to take note of that although the Appellant
Insurance Company had specifically pleaded that the vehicle in question being
Bolero Vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-01-BD-4444 was used for
commercial purpose and there was also evidence to the effect that there were
more occupants then was permissible as per the registration, the learned
Tribunal did not frame any issue in that regard.
12. The learned Tribunal vide separate judgments and awards dated
23.12.2019 opined that the alleged accident took place due to the rash and
negligent driving of the vehicle i.e. the Bolero Vehicle bearing Registration No.
AS-01-BD-4444 and there was no fault on the part of the Truck which was
parked on the extreme left side of the road. The learned Tribunal also came to a
finding that the Bolero Vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-01 -BD-4444 was
insured with the Appellant Insurance Company at that relevant point of time.
The learned Tribunal thereupon held that the claimants in all the claim
applications were entitled to compensation. The claimants in MAC Case No.
19/2015 were awarded a compensation of an amount of Rs.36,35,380/- along
with interest at the rate of 7% per annum since the date of institution of the
claim i.e. 20.03.2015. The claimant in MAC case No. 80/2015 was awarded a
compensation of Rs.76,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum
since the date of institution of the claim i.e. 10.09.2015. The claimant in MAC
case No. 81/2015 was awarded a compensation of Rs.3,02,000/- along with
interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of institution of the claim
i.e. since 10.09.2015. The claimant in MAC case No. 79/2015 was awarded a
compensation of Rs.51,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum
since the date of institution of the claim i.e. since 10.09.2015. Being aggrieved,
the present appeals have been filed.
Page No.# 12/17
13. From the grounds of objection as has been taken by Mr. S. Dutta, the
learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant Insurance
Company, it appears that the Appellant Insurance Company is not contesting on
the question of quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants or even
their entitlement. What is being questioned is, as to whether, the Appellant
Insurance Company ought to have been saddled with the entire liability on the
ground that there was a breach in the terms and conditions of the insurance
contract entered into, by and between the owner of the Bolero Vehicle and the
Appellant Insurance Company. The second ground which was taken is on the
question of contributory negligence, i.e. whether, the Appellant Insurance
Company ought to have been saddled with the entire liability or should it be
proportionately shared with the Reliance India General Insurance Company
Limited who were the insurers of the Truck in question.
14. In the backdrop of the above, let this Court analyze and determine the
grounds of objection so urged by Mr. S. Dutta, the learned Senior Counsel. The
ground of objection as regards the objection to the impugned judgment and
award passed in the 4 (four) claim proceedings insofar as contributory
negligence is concerned, there is no pleading or even any evidence adduced in
that respect by the Appellant Insurance Company. Rather as stated above, in
the written statement filed by the Appellant Insurance Company, more
particularly at paragraph No. 5, it was categorically admitted that there was no
fault on the part of the driver of the Truck in question. Under such
circumstances, the question of involving the Reliance India General Insurance
Company Limited to share the burden of the awards do not arise. The said
ground of objection so taken in respect to contributory negligence fails.
Page No.# 13/17
15. The second ground of objection is whether the Appellant Insurance
Company ought to be saddled with the responsibility to satisfy the judgment
and award passed in the 4 (four) claim proceedings that too when the Appellant
Insurance Company had pleaded and proved the breach of the terms of the
insurance committed by the owner of the Bolero vehicle.
16. This Court had perused the written statement of the Appellant Insurance
Company as well as also the evidence adduced by the Appellant Insurance
Company and the evidence adduced by the other witnesses. The materials on
record show that evidence was adduced on behalf of the Appellant Insurance
Company before the learned Tribunal by its duly appointed investigator. The
witness of the Appellant Insurance Company exhibited the report based upon
his investigation. It was categorically mentioned that in his report that there
were 10 (ten) persons who were inside the vehicle when the accident took place
though the permissible limit of the occupants of the vehicle in question was only
7 (seven). This Court further finds it relevant to take another aspect of the
matter which the learned Tribunal did not take into consideration. It was
specifically urged in the written statement by the Appellant Insurance Company
that the vehicle was used for commercial purpose. The investigation report
which has been exhibited as evidence also mentioned that the vehicle was used
for "Hire" purpose. Besides the FIR so filed by the father of the deceased, which
was duly exhibited, stated that his son had taken on hire the said vehicle.
17. This Court at this stage finds it relevant to take observe that if there were
more persons than the authorized capacity, there would further be a case where
owner of the Bolero vehicle was responsible for the accident. All these aspects
were not at all discussed by the learned Tribunal in the impugned judgment and
Page No.# 14/17
award passed in the 4 (four) claim proceedings and the learned Tribunal
mechanically saddled the liability upon the Appellant Insurance Company. As
such, it is the opinion of this Court that the impugned judgment and award
passed in the 4 (four) claim proceedings are required to be interfered with
insofar as saddling the liability upon the Appellant Insurance Company. It is the
opinion of this Court, that this aspect be decided by the learned Tribunal afresh
by giving due opportunity to the Appellant Insurance Company and the owner of
the Bolero Vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-01-BD-4444.
18. Be that as it may, the vehicle in question being Bolero Vehicle bearing
Registration No. AS-01-BD-4444 was duly insured with the Appellant Insurance
Company and there is no dispute pertaining to the entitlement of the claimants
in the claim proceedings as well as the quantum of the compensation. Under
such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the Appellant Insurance
Company is required to satisfy the said judgments and awards subject to the
following directions.
19. Accordingly, the present 4 (four) appeals stands disposed of with the
following observations and directions:
(i). The judgment and award dated 23.12.2019 passed in MAC Case No.
19/2015 whereby the claimants have been awarded an amount of Rs.
36,35,380/- along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum with effect from
20.03.2015 is not interfered with. Mr. S. Dutta, the learned Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of the Appellant Insurance Company has submitted that the
50% of the amount awarded have been deposited before the Registry of this
Court and the claimants have already received the said amount. The remaining
Page No.# 15/17
amount of 50% be deposited before the learned Tribunal within 6 (six) weeks
from today along with interest awarded by the learned Tribunal.
(ii) The judgment and award dated 23.12.2019 passed in MAC Case No.
80/2015 whereby the claimant has been awarded an amount of Rs. 76,000/-
along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum with effect from 10.09.2015 is
not interfered with. Mr. S. Dutta, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on
behalf of the Appellant Insurance Company had submitted that the 50% of the
amount awarded have been deposited before the Registry of this Court and the
claimant has already the said amount. The remaining amount of 50% be
deposited before the learned Tribunal within 6 (six) weeks from today along
with interest awarded by the learned Tribunal
(iii). The judgment and award dated 23.12.2019 passed in MAC Case No.
81/2015 whereby the claimant has been awarded an amount of Rs. 3,02,000/-
along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum with effect from 10.09.2015 is
not interfered with. Mr. S. Dutta, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on
behalf of the Appellant Insurance Company had submitted that the 50% of the
amount awarded have been deposited before the Registry of this Court and the
claimant has already the said amount. The remaining amount of 50% be
deposited before the learned Tribunal within 6 (six) weeks from today along
with interest awarded by the learned Tribunal
(iv). The judgment and award dated 23.12.2019 passed in MAC Case No.
79/2015 whereby the claimant has been awarded an amount of Rs. 51,000/-
along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum with effect from 10.09.2015 is
not interfered with. Mr. S. Dutta, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on
behalf of the Appellant Insurance Company had submitted that the 50% of the
Page No.# 16/17
amount awarded have been deposited before the Registry of this Court and the
claimant has already the said amount. The remaining amount of 50% be
deposited before the learned Tribunal within 6 (six) weeks from today along
with interest awarded by the learned Tribunal.
(v) This Court however interferes with the directions passed by the learned
Tribunal in MAC Case No. 19/2015, MAC Case No. 79/2015, MAC Case No.
80/2015 and MAC Case No. 81/2015 whereby the Appellant Insurance Company
was directed to pay the said amount so awarded in the 4 (four) claim
proceedings without considering the aspect, as to whether, the Appellant
Insurance Company was liable to pay the said amount or the owner was liable.
Under such circumstances, this Court directs the learned Tribunal i.e. the
learned District Judge-cum-Member, M.A.C.T., Karimganj at Karimganj (now
Sribhumi) to initiate proceedings in all the 4 (four) MAC Cases being MAC Case
No. 19/2015, MAC Case No. 79/2015, MAC Case No. 80/2015 and MAC Case No.
81/2015 on applications being filed by the Appellant Insurance Company, as to
whether, the Appellant Insurance Company would be liable to make payment of
the awarded compensation or the Appellant Insurance Company can recover the
said amount from the owner of the Bolero Vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-
01BD-4444 and take further consequential steps.
(vi) The statutory deposits of Rs. 25,000/- each deposited by the Appellant
Insurance Company at the time of filing of the appeals be refunded by the
Registry of this Court to the Appellant Insurance Company upon deposit of the
remaining amounts as directed herein above by the Appellant Insurance
Company before the learned Tribunal and thereupon producing the orders from
the learned Tribunal evidencing the deposits made, before the Registry of this
Page No.# 17/17
Court.
(vii) The Registry is further directed to forthwith return the records to the
learned Tribunal below.
(viii) This Court is not inclined to impose any costs.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
