Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010167552026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Review.Pet./138/2026 ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT ORIENTAL HOUSE, A25/27, ASAF ALI ROAD, NEW DELHI 110002, AND REGIONAL OFFICE AT GUWAHATI-7, REPRESENTED BY THE REGIONAL MANAGER. VERSUS SRI ANJAN BORAH S/O - LATE NOGENDRA NATH BORAH, R.O- PURNA AMOLAPATTY, P.O.- GOLAGHAT, P.S.- GOLAGHAT, DIST.- GOLAGHAT, ASSAM PIN-785621 (BROTHER OF LATE ANGSHUMAN BORAH) Advocate for the Petitioner : MAMANI CHOUDHURY, S K BEGUM,MR SISHIR DUTTA Advocate for the Respondent : MS. R CHOUDHURY, MS. P BARUAH BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 08.09.2026 Page No.# 2/4 1. Heard Ms. M Choudhury, the learned counsel for the review petitioner. Also heard Ms. R. Chowdhury, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. P. Baruah, the learned counsel for the claimant/respondent. 2. This application under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited in connection with MAC Appeal No. 949/2018, praying for review of the judgment dated 25.05.2026 passed by this Court in MAC Appeal No. 949/2018, whereby the appeal filed by the Insurance Company was dismissed. 3. Ms. M. Choudhury, the learned counsel for the review petitioner, has submitted that though in paragraph No. 23 of the judgment under review, this Court held that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had correctly relied upon the testimony of doctor, who was examined as CW-2 and who was a member of the District Medical Board, who has categorically deposed that loss of earning capacity of the injured is to the extent of 80% due to hemiplegia of both upper and lower limbs. She further submits that this Court also came to the finding in paragraph No. 24 of the judgment under review that the Tribunal, while assessing the loss of earning capacity of the injured at 80%, has not committed any error and said assessment has not been done arbitrarily, but on the basis of materials on record, however, it has not interfered with the computation of compensation payable to the claimant, which was done by the Tribunal in paragraph No. 19 of the judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, where the computation of compensation payable was made after taking loss of earning capacity at 100% instead of 80%. She, therefore, submits that there is an error apparent on the face of the judgment, justifying the review of the judgment rendered by this Court on 25.05.2026. 4. On the other hand, Ms. R. Chowdhury, the learned Senior Counsel for Page No.# 3/4 the claimant/respondent, submits that the Tribunal, after considering the evidence of CW-2, has come to a different finding in paragraph No. 18 of the judgment by it, wherein it has held that the entire earning capacity of the injured claimant has been lost. She, therefore, submits that the Tribunal has correctly assessed the loss of earning capacity of the claimant at 100% instead of 80%, which was suggested by CW-2. She, however, submits that in the judgment under review, this Court, though agreed with the assessment of loss of earning capacity by the Tribunal, has mentioned in paragraph No. 24 of the judgment that said loss of earning capacity is 80%, which is an incorrect statement. She, therefore, submits that as the judgment under review has upheld the judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by justifying the reasonings of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in the judgment by it, no ground of review is made out. 5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides. 6. It appears that though the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in its judgment dated 13.10.2014 passed in MAC Case No. 73/2011, in paragraph No. 17 thereof, agreed with the assessment by CW-2 that loss of earning capacity is to the extent of 80%, however, in paragraph No. 18 of the said judgment, it held that the entire earning capacity of the injured claimant has been lost. 7. This aspect has not been considered by this Court in the judgment under review and held that the Tribunal has rightly assessed the loss of earning capacity at 80%. As such, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is an error apparent in the judgment under review, and the same is, therefore, liable to be set aside and the matter is required to be heard again. Page No.# 4/4 8. For the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs, this review petition is allowed. The judgment rendered by this Court on 25.05.2026 in MAC Appeal No. 949/2018 is hereby set aside. 9. The Registry shall list the MAC Appeal No. 949/2018 for hearing again on 06.10.2026. JUDGE Comparing Assistant