Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010031632024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/481/2024 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AND HEAD OFFICE AT 24 WHITES ROAD, CHENNAI AND ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT G.S. ROAD, DISPUR, GUWAHATI, AND REP. BY THE CHIEF REGIONAL MANAGER, GUWAHATI REGIONAL OFFICE, G.S. ROAD, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781005. VERSUS MINCHU EKRU AND 4 ORS. S/O PIDDU EKRU, VILL.- 131, BOO, ANINI NEAR BOLOVADRA THA, P.O. AND P.S.- ANINI, DIST.- DIBANG VALLEY, ARUNACHAL PRADESH, PIN- 792101. 2:LAMA MIHU W/O MINCHU EKRU VILL.- 131 BOO ANINI NEAR BOLOVADRA THA P.O. AND P.S.- ANINI DIST.- DIBANG VALLEY ARUNACHAL PRADESH PIN- 792101. 3:SURESH KUMAR S/O SRI BANWARI LAL R/O BHAGNAWALI P.O.- MANAKSAS P.S.- UDAIPURWATI DIST.- JHUNHUNU PIN- 333801 Page No.# 2/5 RAJASTHA. 4:GRIEF 1446 BCC (GRIEF) TEZU DIST.- LOHIT PIN- 792001 ARUNACHAL PRADESH. 5:MINA LINDI W/O JEEVAN LINGI VILL.- IDILI ROING P.O. AND P.S.- ROING DIST.- LOWER DIBANG VALLEY ARUNACHAL PRADESH PIN- 792110 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R GOSWAMI, MS. P BORTHAKUR,MS. M SAIKIA Advocate for the Respondent : , In Case : MACApp./77/2024 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AND HEAD OFFICE AT 24 WHITES ROAD CHENNAI AND ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT G.S. ROAD DISPUR GUWAHATI AND REP. BY THE CHIEF REGIONAL MANAGER GUWAHATI REGIONAL OFFICE G.S. ROAD DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781005. VERSUS MINCHU EKRU AND 4 ORS. S/O PIDDU EKRU Page No.# 3/5 VILL.- 131 BOO ANINI NEAR BOLOVADRA THA P.O. AND P.S.- ANINI DIST.- DIBANG VALLEY ARUNACHAL PRADESH PIN- 792101. 2:LAMA MIHU W/O MINCHU EKRU VILL.- 131 BOO ANINI NEAR BOLOVADRA THA P.O. AND P.S.- ANINI DIST.- DIBANG VALLEY ARUNACHAL PRADESH PIN- 792101. 3:SURESH KUMAR S/O SRI BANWARI LAL R/O BHAGNAWALI P.O.- MANAKSAS P.S.- UDAIPURWATI DIST.- JHUNHUNU PIN- 333801 RAJASTHA. 4:GRIEF 1446 BCC (GRIEF) TEZU DIST.- LOHIT PIN- 792001 ARUNACHAL PRADESH. 5:MINA LINDI W/O JEEVAN LINGI VILL.- IDILI ROING P.O. AND P.S.- ROING DIST.- LOWER DIBANG VALLEY ARUNACHAL PRADESH PIN- 792110. ------------ Advocate for : MR. R GOSWAMI Advocate for : MS M BHARATI (r-1 2) appearing for MINCHU EKRU AND 4 ORS. Page No.# 4/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 11.03.2026 [1] Heard Mr. R. Goswami, the learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. B.R. Das, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as well as Mr. P. S. Bhattacharyya, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. [2] This interlocutory application under Order XLI Rule V of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed by the applicant/insurance company praying for grant of stay of execution of the impugned judgment and award dated 17.11.2023, passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonitpur in MAC Case No. 15/2022(Death). [3] The learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. R. Goswami has submitted that in this case, the Tribunal in the impugned order has categorically held that the accident was caused due to negligence of the driver of the vehicle bearing Registration No. 10C-20045, however, the Tribunal has without any reasons directed the present applicant, who was the insurer of the motor-cycle involved in the accident to pay the compensation amount. [4] He submits that no reasons have been prescribed by the Tribunal for directing the present applicant to pay the compensation. Hence, the present applicant has filed the connected MACAppeal No. Page No.# 5/5 77/2024, impugning the aforesaid judgment and award. He submits that since there is no material on record, which could have made the present applicant liable to pay compensation to the claimant, the execution of the impugned judgment and award is required to be stayed during the pendency of the connected MAC Appeal No. 77/2024. [5] On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimant/respondent, Mr. B.R. Das has also fairly submitted that the charge-sheet was also laid against the driver of the GRIEF vehicle and the Tribunal have not given any justification for imposing the liability to pay the compensation by the present applicant. [6] Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and considering the fact that prima facie, it appears that the liability to pay compensation was imposed on the present applicant without showing any reason for the same in the impugned judgment, the execution of the impugned judgment is required to be stayed during the pendency of the connected MACAppeal. [7] Accordingly, same is done. [8] This interlocutory application (civil) is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant