[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Tripura High Court
Smti Jhuma Begam vs Shri Atikul Haque on 11 December, 2025
Author: T. Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
Review Petn. 29 of 2025
1. Smti Jhuma Begam, W/O Late Lal Miah, 30 years
2. Shri Marjan Islam, S/O Late Lal Miah, 9 years.
3. Smti Reshma Aktar, D/O Late Lal Miah, 12 years
4. Smti Charful Bibi, W/O Shri Kala Miah (47 years)
All are residents of Atharobhola, PS Killa, Udaipur, District Gomati,
Tripura(the claimant-petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 being minors represented
by their mother i.e petitioner No 1)
...........Claimant-Petitioners
Versus
1. Shri Atikul Haque, S/O Abdul Haque, Resident of Fulbari, PS:
Churaibari, Dharmanagar, District-North Tripura
(Owner of vehicle bearing No. TR-05B-1822, TATA Tipper Truck)
2. Shri Atikul Islam, S/O Md. Makbul Ali, Resident of Kalagangerpar,
Vitorgool, PS: Kadamtala, Dharmanagar, District - North Tripura
(Driver of vehicle bearing No. TR-05B-1822, TATA Tipper Truck)
3. The Branch Manager, The United India Insurance Company Ltd,
Udaipur Branch, Central Road, Udaipur, PS-R. K. Pur, District -
Gomati, Tripura (Insurer of vehicle bearing No. TR-05B-1822, TATA
Tipper Truck)
4. Shri Aktar Hussein, S/O Manju Miah,Resident of Khupilong, PS:
Killa, Udaipur, District - Gomati, Tripura (Owner of vehicle bearing
No. NL-01K-7549, TATA LPT Truck)
5. The Branch Manager, Shriram Transport Finance Company
Limited, Udaipur Branch, Ramesh Choumuhani. PS R. K. Pur, District
- Gomati, Tripura (Insurer of vehicle bearing No. NL-01K-7549, TATA
LPT Truck)
...........Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arjun Acharjee, Advocate.
Ms. M. Basu, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. K. Deb, Advocate.
Page 2 of 4
HON'BLE JUSTICE DR. T. AMARNATH GOUD
ORDER
11.12.2025
[1] This review petition has been filed under Order 47 Rule 1
of the Civil Procedure Code for seeking the following reliefs:
"Under the circumstances stated above, it is submitted, that the Hon'ble High
Court would be kind enough to allow the instant application under Order 47
Rule 1 of CPC to review of the Order dated 22.08.2025 passed by the Hon'ble
High Court in MAC Appl. 65/2025.
And
Pass any further order/orders as this Hon'ble High Court considered fit and
proper
And
For this act of kindness, your humble Petitioners as in duty bound shall ever
pray."
[2] Brief facts of the case is that the petitioners filed a motor
accident claim, Udaipur, Gomati Tripura wherein they made opposite
party No. 5 i.e Shiram Transport Finance company limited ( respondent
No. 5 herein). The vehicle (TATA LPT TRUCK) was insured with
Shiram General Insurance Company Ltd. And as per seizure list which
has been exhibited by the Ld. Tribunal, wherein it is categorically
reflected that the vehicle (TATA LPT TRUCK) was insured by Shiram
General Insurance Company Ltd., which has already been on the record.
Hence, this review petition.
[3] Mr. A. Acharjee, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners submits before this Court that the petitioners filed a motor
accident claim, wherein they made opposite party No. 5 i.e Shiram
Transport Finance company limited. But the said vehicle (TATA LPT
TRUCK) was insured with Shiram General insurance Company Ltd. He
also submits that according to seizure list which has been exhibited by
the learned Tribunal, wherein it has been categorically reflected that the
vehicle (TATA LPT TRUCK) was insured by Shiram General Insurance
Company Ltd., which has already been on the record. He, therefore
prayed before this Court to allow his petition by reviewing the order
dated 22.08.2025 passed in Mac. App. No.65 of 2025.
[4] Heard and perused the evidence on record.
[5] Upon going through the matter on merits and in the light
of the para 4 and 7 of the order dated 22.08.2025 passed in Mac. App
No. 65 of 2025 which is extracted as under :
"4 Me. K. De, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submits that the
learned Tribunal failed to consider that, by order dated 21.12.2020, the
MACT-Tribunal had already struck out the name of the appellant from the
case vide No. TS(MAC) 09 of 2020 on the basis of the petition filed by the
respondent. As such, the learned Tribunal erred in law by passing the award
against the appellant in a case where the appellant not a party.
7. Both matters are heard together and disposed of by this common
Judgment. Since the decree by the Court below was passed against respondent
No.5. who was supposed to be "Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd.",
which has been replaced by order dated 21.12.2020 with "Shriram Transport
Finance Company Ltd.," it is open for the petitioner to take steps with the
concerned Court for amending the said judgment, and thereafter to proceed
with the recovery against respondent No.5, the judgment debtor, ie., "Shriram
Transport Finance Company Ltd.", for the claim amount. There cannot be
any claim against the Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd."
[6] This court is of the opinion that the ground on which
learned counsel for the petitioners is now arguing needs no interference.
Further, the counsel for the petitioners is also failed to make out a case
for re-considering the order dated 22.08.2025 passed in Mac. App No.
65 of 2025. Hence, it is needless to mention that the scope of review is
very limited and accordingly the same is dismissed. However, this Court
is also of the opinion that it is always open for the petitioners to take
appropriate steps available under law before the competent Court, if so
advised.
[7] As a sequel, miscellaneous application(s), pending if any,
shall stand closed.
DR. T. AMARNATH GOUD, J
Paritosh
SABYAS Digitally signed
by SABYASACHI
ACHI GHOSH
Date: 2025.12.15
GHOSH 16:54:27 +05'30'
