Allowed

Mr. Ramindar Ramlochan Sharma v. Mr. Manish Atmaram Thale and Anr.

Bombay HC10 Oct 2024IA/11743/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a first appeal arising from a motor accident claim, the appellant sought restoration after the appeal was conditionally dismissed for not impleading the heirs of the deceased vehicle owner. The court found the owner's presence unnecessary given the framed issues and no statutory defence, allowing condonation of delay and restoration.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of delay and restoration against Respondent No.1 allowed; presence of Respondent No.1's heirs dispensed with.

Mr. Ramindar Ramlochan Sharma vs Mr. Manish Atmaram… — Motor Accident Claims | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

19 ia 11743-24 in fa 688-23-c.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.11743 OF 2024

¶4

IN FIRST APPEAL NO.688 OF 2023 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.688 OF 2023

¶5

Raminder Ramlochan Sharma … Appellant/Applicant

¶6

vs.

¶7

Manish Atmaram Thale and anr. … Respondents

¶8

*****

¶9

None for the Appellant/Applicant.

¶10

Mr. Nikhil Mehta i/by M/s KMC Legal Venture, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

¶11

¶12

CORAM : S. M. MODAK, J. DATE : 10^th OCTOBER 2024

¶13

P. C. :-

¶14

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.11743 OF 2024 IN

¶15

FIRST APPEAL NO.688 OF 2023

¶16

No one is present on behalf of the Appellant/ Applicant.

¶17

As per the conditional order dated 23^rd January, 2024, the appeal

¶18

was dismissed for not bringing the heirs of deceased Respondent No.1.

¶19

1/3

¶20

Priya Soparkar

¶21

Digitally PRIYARAJESHSOPARKAR signed byPRIYARAJESHSOPARKARDate:2024.10.15 11:38:03 +0530

¶22

19 ia 11743-24 in fa 688-23-c.doc

¶23

He was the owner of the offending vehicle-dumper.

¶24

I have gone through the issues framed by the Tribunal on page

¶25

They relates to negligence of the driver of the dumper, negligence of the deceased- motor cyclist and territorial jurisdiction. There are no statutory defence. As such, his presence is not required, even he has not appeared before the Tribunal.

¶26

In view of the above facts, the application for condonation of delay and restoration against Respondent No.1 is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b).

¶27

Interim Application is disposed of.

¶28

FIRST APPEAL NO.688 OF 2023

¶29

For the reasons stated above, for presence of Respondent No. 1- owner of the offending vehicle is dispensed.

¶30

After appearance, if the Respondent No.2 -Insurance Company

¶31

will show that his presence is required, this order can be reconsidered. Notice is already waived.

¶32

Heard Mr. Nikhil Mehta, learned Advocate for Respondent

No.2.

2/3

Priya Soparkar

19 ia 11743-24 in fa 688-23-c.doc

¶37

Copy of the appeal memo be served on Mr. Mehta.

¶38

Stand over to 29^th November, 2024 .

¶39

[S. M. MODAK, J.]

¶40

3/3

¶41

Priya Soparkar

Mr. Ramindar Ramlochan Sharma v. Mr. Manish Atmaram Thale and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Ramindar Ramlochan Sharma v. Mr. Manish Atmaram Thale and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay K. Upadhay vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors.

Kailash Anna Atole vs Jayashri Kailash Atole

Virendrasinh Sharadchandra Tawade vs State of Maharashtra

SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd.,Mumbai vs Mr. Mitaram Ramlal Jangid and Ors.

Chhotubhai Devyabhai Dumada and Ors. vs Reliance General Ins. Co. Ltd. and Ors.

The Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai Thr. General Manager vs Seetaram Matadin Agarwal