United India Insurance Company Limited v. Smti. Sonali Saikia and 4 Ors

ORDER Date : 29-08-2024 Heard Mr. H. Buragohain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. Baruah, learned counsel for the opposite party/claimant/respondent No.1. This is an application filed by the appellant company praying for review/recalling of the order dated 03.08.2018 passed by this Court in the connected appeal being MAC.App No.471/2018. This Court vide order dated 03.08.2018 admitted the MAC.App. 471/2018 filed by the appellant subject to payment of 50% of the awarded amount to be deposited before the Registry of this Court within 4 (four) weeks from the date of the order and the respondent No.1/claimant was allowed to withdraw the amount subject to proper identification. The grounds taken in the application is that the plea of fake policy as raised by the appellant has not been addressed by the learned Tribunal and the appeal being filed on the ground that as the policy was fake and the awarded amount cannot be paid by the Insurance Company, is pending adjudication, the direction for permitting withdrawal of the deposited amount by the claimant would amount to drawal of a presumption that a genuine policy cover for alleged offending vehicle exist. Further ground is that the copy of the policy produced is a fake policy, for which no premiums was realized and hence making payment in terms of the order and not resisting the order of withdrawal of such amount by the claimant would amount to violation of Section 64 V(B) of Insurance Act. Therefore, the order dated

03.08.2018 permitting withdrawal of the 50% of the awarded amount that would be deposited by the claimant amounts to an error, which is apparent on the case of the record. On careful consideration of the order dated 03.08.2018, it is seen that this Court admitted the appeal subject to payment of 50% of the awarded amount to be deposited before the Registry of this Court and allowed the respondent No.1/claimant to withdraw the amount subject to proper identification. This Court is of the view that such an order admitting the appeal subject to payment of Page No.# 3/3 50% of the awarded amount by the claimant would not be an error, which is apparent on the case of the record. Considering the above, this Court finds no ground for review of the order dated 03.08.2018 as no error apparent on the case of the record is indicated in the said order. Accordingly, the review petition stands dismissed and disposed of.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

PageoNo.#o1/3 GAHC010193082019 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oReview.Pet./85/2023o UNITEDoINDIAoINSURANCEoCOMPANYoLIMITEDo AoPUBLICoSECTORoUNDERTAKING,oHAVINGoITSoREGISTEREDoOFFICEoATo CHENNAI,oREPRESENTEDoBYoITSoREGIONALoOFFICEoAToG.S.oROAD,o GUWAHATI,oASSAM-781005 VERSUSo SMTI.oSONALIoSAIKIAoANDo4oORSo W/OoLATEoSRIoARUNoSAIKIA,oR/OoMILANPUR,oKAMARCHUBURI,oP.O.oando P.S.oTEZPUR,oDIST.oSONITPUR,oASSAM. 2:SARBANoSINGH oS/OoS.oSINGH oR/OoPAo63 oBELGACHIAoROAD oKOLKATA oWESToBENGAL oC/OoLOKNATHoBODYoBUILDERS oSODHAPURoROAD oJUGBESIAoN o24oPARGANAS oWESToBENGAL 3:BHARAToSARKAR oS/OoSRIoPRANABoKR.oSARKAR oR/OoRUBBERoBAGAN oTEZPUR oP.S.oTEZPUR oDIST.oSONITPUR oASSAMo AdvocateoforotheoPetitionerooooo:oMR.oBoJoMUKHERJE,oMS.LoSHARMA,MR.SoSoSHARMA,MRoAo Page No.# 2/3 SHARMA Advocate for the Respondent : , MS.P BORTHAKUR(R-1),MR.P P BORTHAKUR(R-1),MR.D KALITA(R-1),MR. R BARUAH BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE