UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. MD HAIDAR @ HAMID ALI AND 3 ORS
MACApp./412/2025 · 2025-09-12
Susmita Phukan Khaund
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 18700 (GAU) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 18700 (GAU) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010198622025
2025:GAU-AS:12537
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : MACApp./412/2025 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.
HAVING ITS REGISTERED HEAD OFFICE AT 24, WHITES ROAD, CHENNAI 600014 AND ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT CHIBBAR HOUSE, 1ST FLOOR, G.S.
ROAD, NEAR DISPUR POST OFFICE, GUWAHATI, KAMRUP (M), PIN 781005 REPRESENTED BY THE REGIONAL MANAGER, GUWAHATI REGIONAL OFFICE. VERSUS MD HAIDAR @ HAMID ALI AND 3 ORS S/O GULBAHAR ALI 2:GULBAHAR ALI ALL ARE THE RESIDENTS OF RAHDHALA P.S. AND P.O. MIKIRBHETA DIST. MORIGAON PIN 782108 (RESPONDENT NO. 1 INJURED WAS REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER I.E. THE RESPONDENT NO. 2) 3:AMANULLA HUSSAIN S/O ABDUL KHALEQUE R/O VILL. MALIATI P.S. AND P.O. PALASHBARI DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM PIN 781128 4:MD. ISHAHAOQUE ALI S/O LATE YARADDIN R/O VILL. JALUGUTI
Page No.# 2/3 P.S. AND P.O. MORIGAON DIST. MORIGAON PIN 78210 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR T KALITA, MR. A KAKATI Advocate for the Respondent : ,
BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER 13.09.2025
1. Mr. Sapan Maji, Regional Manager is present for the Insurer, United India Insurance Company Ltd.
2. The claimant Md. Haidar @Hamid Ali is present.
3. Both the parties have settled their dispute amicably. The Insurance Company has agreed to pay an amount of Rs. 15,50,000/- as compensation to the claimant.
4. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 15,50,000/- before the learned Tribunal, MACT No. 1, Kamrup (M) within 4 (four) weeks from the date of this order.
5. The Claimant may be allowed to withdraw the amount after proper verification of the claimant by the Tribunal.
6. The Insurance Company is allowed to withdraw the statutory deposit.
7. In terms of the above observation, this application stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Page No.# 3/3 Comparing Assistant