Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 4201 (GAU)

The Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited v. Rakhe Tallar and 2 Ors

IA(C)/61/2025 · 2025-05-07

Arun Dev Choudhury

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/2 GAHC040002992025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : IA(C)/61/2025 The Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited having its registered and Head Office at GE Plaza, Airport Road, Nerada, Pune 411006 and Regional Office at North Ester Regional Office at Sreeji Tower, 2nd Floor, C/o Gauhati Tea Warehousing pvt Ltd, Adjacent to Mahindra Showroom, Christian Basti, Guwahati, Pin 781005, Kamrup Metropolitan District, Assam , represented by its Legal Executive , Claims Department Mr Nayanjyoti Choudhury. VERSUS Rakhe Tallar and 2 Ors Son of Late Rakhe Teri, resident of Village Bomte, Circle Kamporijo, PO Boasimla, PS Raga, Lower Subansiri District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2:Hemanta Kumar Das Age: 0 Occupation : Son of Narendra Nath Das resident of Ward No.33 House No.36 Beltola Mouza Beltola PS Dispur Guwahati Kamrup (M) District Assam (owner) 3:Md Inush Ali Age: 0 Occupation : Son of L P Ali resident of Village Lilabari Balijan Kakoi Rajgarh North Lakhimpur District Assam 787051 (Driver Advocate for the Petitioner : Khogen Bui, Page No.# 2/2 Advocate for the Respondent : Subu Koyang, Tadar Rar,Karli Ete,Radhe Yakang,Ugin Puri,Morrik Bagra,Subu Koyang,Debo Mangkhya -BEFORE- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY 08.05.2025 Office note dated 07.05.2025 reflects that un-served notice in respect of respondent No. 2 has been returned with a postal note “Insufficient Address” and service report in respect of respondent No. 3 is not yet received. None appears for the applicant on call. However, the learned counsel for the claimant submits that the amount awarded has already been received by the claimant. In the considered opinion of this Court, the same may be the reason for none appearance of the learned counsel for the applicant. As the learned counsel for the applicant is not present and no fresh steps has been taken upon the respondent No. 2, this application stands dismissed for non-prosecution. In view of the above, this Interlocutory Stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant