Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010119362016
2025:GAU-AS:2850
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP/372/2016 KHAGENDRA NAMASUDRA S/O LT. KSHITISH NAMASUDRA, VILL. LAFASHIL, LAKHIBAZAR, P.S. and DIST- KARIMGNJ, ASSAM, PRESENTLY R/O VILL. MALUGRAM, P.O.
SILCHAR-2, P.S. SILCHAR, DIST- CACHAR, ASSAM VERSUS XXXXXXX AND 3 ORS. XXXXXXX 2:SRI RAJIB KAR S/O SRI R. KAR RESIDENT OF KALAPAHAR GUWAHATI-16 DISTRICT- KAMRUP(M) ASSAM.
3:MD. SWORT AHMED S/O MD. ELAS ALI VILL. HARINANDUK P.S. BADARPUR DIST- KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN-788806 4:THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
SILCHAR DIVISIONAL OFFICE PWD ROAD TOWN CLUB BUILDING P.O. SILCHAR-1
Page No.# 2/3 DIST- CACHAR ASSA For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. M. Talukdar, Advocate
For the Respondent(s) : Ms. M. Choudhury, Advocate
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER Date : 17.03.2025
Heard Mr. M. Talukdar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Ms. M. Choudhury, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Oriental Insurance Company.
2. The instant proceedings have been filed challenging an order dated 28.06.2016 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Silchar, Cachar.
3. This Court has perused the impugned order and from a perusal of the said impugned order, it is seen that the claimant has not taken steps in the said claim proceedings. Apart from that, it is also seen that the learned Tribunal further took note of that the claimant is a permanent resident of Karimganj District and the owner of the vehicle is not a resident of Cachar District and the accident took place in the State of Meghalaya.
4. This Court has taken note of the manner in which the claimant has proceeded in the said claim proceedings. It is the opinion of this Court that the learned Tribunal ought to have dismissed the said proceedings
Page No.# 3/3 taking into account that the claimant was not interested.
5. Considering the above, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned order for which the instant petition stands dismissed.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant