Tripura High Court
Review Pet./2/2026 of Sri Paresh Sabdakar Vs The New India Assurance Co Ltd and Anr on 6 March 2026
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA REVIEW PETITION NO.02 OF 2026 Sri Paresh Sabdakar (aged about 67 years), Father of Late Nripendra Sabdakar, resident of Sudhangshu Ghosh Para, P.S. Ambassa, P.O. Ambassa, District Dhalai Tripura, Pin 799289; …….Petitioner(s) Vs. 1. The New India
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
REVIEW PETITION NO.02 OF 2026
Sri Paresh Sabdakar (aged about 67 years), Father of Late Nripendra Sabdakar, resident of Sudhangshu Ghosh Para, P.S. Ambassa, P.O. Ambassa, District Dhalai Tripura, Pin 799289;
…….Petitioner(s)
Vs.
1. The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Agartala Division, 4, Mantribari Road, P.S. West Agartala, District West Tripura, Pin-799001.
Represented by its Divisional Manager, (Insurer of vehicle bearing No.NL-01-K-4098 (Truck).
2. Sri Subir Saha, son of Pulin Behari Saha, resident of South Indranagar, P.S. East Agartala, P.O. Dhaleswar, District - West Tripura, Pin 799007, (Owner of the vehicle bearing No. No.NL-01-K-4098 (Truck).
……Respondents
Present:
For the Appellant(s)
: Mr. D. Bhattacharya, Sr. Advocate.
Mr. A. Chakraborty, Advocate.
Mr. S. Das, Advocate.
Ms. R. Bhattacharjee, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. G.S. Das, Advocate.
Mr. K. Deb, Advocate.
Mr. M. Dey, Advocate.
06.03.2026
HON’BLE JUSTICE DR. T. AMARNATH GOUD
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
FINAL ORDER
1. This present petition has been filed for reviewing the Judgment and Order dated 31.10.2025 passed in MFA(EC) 4 of 2025 by this Court.
2. Heard Mr. S. Das, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, as well as Mr. G.S. Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
3. Mr. Das, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submits that the monthly income of the deceased has been assessed as Rs. 11,000/- instead of Rs. 26,000/-, as assessed by the learned Tribunal below, and the same needs to be reviewed, as such reduction is contrary to the record. He further submits that even the salary of the assistant of the truck vehicle has been assessed at Rs. 10,000/- per month, and as such, the assessment of the salary of the deceased at Rs. 11,000/-, being the driver of the vehicle, is quite abnormal. Therefore, the assessment of Rs. 26,000/- made by the learned Tribunal should be restored.
4. This Court has considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The ground urged by the petitioner relates to the assessment of the income of the deceased, which was already considered by this Court while passing the Judgment and Order dated 31.10.2025. The submissions now advanced essentially seek re-appreciation of the materials on record, which is not permissible in review jurisdiction. No error apparent on the face of the record has been pointed out warranting interference with the Judgment and Order dated 31.10.2025 passed in MFA(EC) 4 of 2025.
5. Accordingly, this present review petition stands dismissed. As a sequel stay if any stands vacated. Pending application(s), if any also stands closed.
DR. T. AMARNATH GOUD, J
Suhanjit +05'30'