Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 22884 (GAU)

Cholamandalam M/S General Insurance Company Ltd r/b Sh Gautam Pradhan v. Smt Vanlalhriati and 2 Ors.

I.A.(Civil)/106/2024 · 2025-02-03

Kaushik Goswami

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC030004062024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : MACApp./6/2024 Cholamandalam M/S General Insurance Company Ltd r/b Sh Gautam Pradhan Asst Manager Assistant Manager, M/s Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd. Regional Office at Aastha Plaza, 4th Floor, G.S. Road, Opp. S.B.Deorah College, Ulubari, Guwahati, Assam-781007 VERSUS Smt Vanlalhriati and 2 Ors. W/o Hranghluna (L), R/o Kawrtethawveng, Mamit District, Mizoram 2:Sh Sanjib Gurung S/o Madan Gurung R/o Falkawn Aizawl Mizoram 3:Sh Jakir Hussain Laskar S/o Shab Ali Laskar R/o Katilchera Hailakandi Assa Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Roshan Subedi Advocate for the Respondent : Mr Lalremtluanga for R1 Linked Case : I.A.(Civil)/106/2024 Cholamandalam M/S General Insurance Company Ltd r/b Sh Gautam Pradhan Cholamandalam Page No.# 2/3 M/S General Insurance Company Ltd. Regional Office at Aastha Plaza 4th Floor G.S.Road Opp.S.B.Deorah College Ulubari Guwahati Assam-781007 VERSUS Smt Vanlalhriati and 2 Ors. W/o Hranghluna (L). R/o Kawrtethawveng Mamit District Mizoram Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Roshan Subedi Advocate for the Respondent : B E F O R E HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MARLI VANKUNG ORDER 26.05.2025 Heard Ms. Laltlanhlui, learned counsel for the appellant along with Mr. Lalremtluanga, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1. None appeared for respondent No. 2, though the postal tracking indicates that notie was delivered to respondent No. 2. In view of the above, notice is deemed to be complete upon respondent No. 2. It is also seen in the Office Note dated 23.05.2025 that notice could not be served upon respondent No. 3 due to insufficient address. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the respondent No. 3 Page No.# 3/3 being the driver of the accident vehicle may be dropped since he is just a profoma respondent, the appeal being with regards to the quantum of the award made by the learned Tribunal. In view of the above, respondent No. 3 is dropped. It is seen that TCR is received and the appeal has been admitted. Accordingly, the matter may be listed for hearing after 2 (two) weeks. JUDGE Comparing Assistant