Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 21520 (GAU)

DIMPAL ROY AND ANR v. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD AND 2 ORS

I.A.(Civil)/3945/2024 · 2025-01-19

Sanjay Kumar Medhi

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010260892024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) I.A.(Civil)/3945/2024 MAC App./408/2023 (D/O) DIMPAL ROY AND ANR S/O LATE KANDARPA ROY, VILL.- SUKULAPAR (KALIBARI), P.O.- BAGHMARA BAZAR, P.S.- PATACHARKUCHI, DIST.- BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN- 781328. 2: HARBALA ROY M/O LATE KANDARPA ROY VILL.- SUKULAPAR (KALIBARI) P.O.- BAGHMARA BAZAR P.S.- PATACHARKUCHI DIST.- BARPETA ASSAM PIN- 781328 VERSUS THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD AND 2 ORS HAVING ITS REGISTERED HEAD OFFICE AT 3, MIDDLETON STREET, CALCUTTA- 700071 AND REGIONAL OFFICE AT BHANGAGARH, GUWAHATI, REP. BY THE REGIONAL MANAGER, GUWAHATI REGIONAL OFFICE, BHANGAGARH, GUWAHATI- 781005, DIST.- KAMRUP (METRO), ASSAM. 2:GUNAJIT MEDHI S/O SRI SUCHIL KUMAR MEDHI VILL.- TUPLI PANBARI P.O.- NITTANANDA P.S.- PATACHARKUCHI DIST.- BARPETA ASSAM PIN- 781328. Page No.# 2/3 3:SUCHIL KUMAR MEDHI S/O LATE HARICHARAN MEDHI VILL.- TUPLI PANBARI P.O.- NITTANANDA P.S.- PATACHARKUCHI DIST.- BARPETA ASSAM PIN- 781328 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H DAS, MR. M KALITA Advocate for the Respondent : MS. D D BARMAN, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 20.01.2025 Heard Shri H Das, learned counsel for the applicants, who by means of this application has sought for a correction in the order dated 14.09.2024 passed by this Court while disposing the connected MAC App./408/2023. It has been submitted that as per settlement reached between the parties, the total compensation was agreed to be Rs. 14,50,000/-. However, in the manner prescribed for release of the amount, it is submitted that the amount which was prescribed for the claimant no. 3-Smt. Harbala Roy has been inadvertently written as Rs. 50,000/- which should have been Rs.5,00,000/- only. The aforesaid submission has been considered and tallied with the judgment. It appears that since the total amount was Rs.14,50,000/-, while prescribing the manner of release, the amount which was released to the claimant no. 3-Smt. Harbala Roy should have been Rs. 5,00,000/- which has been inadvertently typed as Rs. 50,000/-. Accordingly, it is clarified that the amount which has been shown as Rs. 50,000/- to be released to the claimant no. 3-Smt. Harbala Roy is to be read as Rs. 5,00,000/-. Page No.# 3/3 Interlocutory application accordingly stands disposed of. Let this order be read as a part of the order dated 14.09.2024 by which the connected appeal was disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant