Dismissed

Gyanendra Khunte and Anr. v. Bajrang and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC3 Feb 2012MAC/147/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed the miscellaneous appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The court rejected the application for condonation of delay, citing lack of valid reason and a preliminary finding on merits that the insurance company should not be liable as the driver lacked a valid license. Consequently, the time-barred appeal was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The application for condonation of delay and the miscellaneous appeal were dismissed as time-barred.

Gyanendra Khunte and Anr. Vs Bajrang and Ors. — Arbitration | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HON'BLE HI6H COURT OF WHAmSGAMj AJ BILASPUR

¶2

MISC. APPEAL [C] N0. (^^ /2012

¶3

APPELLANTS

¶4

l./GYANENDRA KHUNTE, S/o Pardeshi Ram Khunte, caste- Satnami, aged about 20 years, R/o Taldevri, Police station: Bamhanidih, Districdtr; Janjgir-Champa

l^-4'.f"X'SrO

•^w

wseor* ^ ^.U^^^•^w 2. ;»ri»*

¶10

¶11

.PARDESHI RAM S/o Baladram Khunte, caste- Satnami, aged about 52 years, R/o Taldevri, Police Station Bamhanidih, t)istnct Janjgir-Champa (C.6.) at residing aT S.E.C.L. Colony, present Nawapa'ra, Chhal, Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh (C.6.).

¶12

(Qwner)

¶13

VERSUS

¶14

{' BAJRANG s/o Sarwan, aged about 35 years,

¶15

,-KU. ANJALI b/o Bajrang, aged about ' 18 years.

¶16

iKU. ANJANA b/o Bajrang, aged about 13 years,

¶17

< KU. ANKITA D/o Bajrang, aged about 06 years.

¶18

, KU. ANAMIKA t)/o Bajrang, aged about li years.

¶19

Respondent No. 3 to 5 are minor through father Bajrang S/o Sarwan, all are by caste- Satnami, R/o Taldevri, Police Station Bamhanidih, District Janjgir-Champa (C.&.).

¶20

/6.

¶21

THE NEW INDIA INSURANCE COMPAW LJMITE&, Raigarh (C.G.)

¶22

MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT. 1988

¶23

.rf«

¶24

KISH_CGiURT OF CKHATTI8SARK AT.BILA^PUR

¶25

M. A. (Ci HC. i47 OF 2012

¶26

&FP® ANTS

¶27

GyariendrA Kli-aute aiid auofSlci.

Vs.

RBoPOSBBNTS

Bajraug and othera.

APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OFTHE MOTOR VEHICLES AQL 1QSS

¶32

Ho2i9fele Shri G. MisiSiai'siddita.^ «J<J.

¶33

Present: Shri Gurudcv 1. Sliaraii, counsel for tlie appeUsLats.

¶34

OR&LORDBR

¶35

(Passed oa 3rd da? of February, 2012)

¶36

Per Df. i. M. Quddusi, J. v

¶37

Heai'u on I.A. No.Ol, application for condouatloa ufdelay iu fillug the appeal.

¶38

¶39

. yhc. appeuaiits have filcu fhis appeai for setting aside fuc award iiupugned.

¶40

As per office report, fhere is 79 days clelay iu fiiing tlie

¶41

appeai,

¶42

In tb-e appllcatloii, tb.e ojily reasou hias beeii glveu Le. laclc of kiiowledge 01 period of Uuutatiou. This is not an appealiiig reason for condouatIoH of delay, as iu. uie Claliiis Tribun.al, the coiuisel was cugaged by the appeflaiits aud fhey c-ould consult flie counsel veiy weU.. Tlierefore, it cannot be said fuat fhey had iio kuowledge about tlie period of liniitauon. -Iguoi'ance oflaw Is no excuse for condonatioii of uelay lu filiug flie appeal. Furfher, ou iiierits also ~we have feujid. that the driver of tlie offendliii veliicle (iiiotorcycle) was not haviag a valid and eficctive uriviiig Uceucc to drive the veliicle ou tlie u.sic of accid.eut. Tliereibre, uie

¶43

liabiuty coiiies. upou tue owncr ajici not upoii tiie Insurauce

¶44

¶45

CoBipaD-y. Heiiee, ou m.eri.ts also it is not a llt case tor settln^ aslde tlie award inipugned.

¶46

Iii vlew of the above, we ax'e uot satisfled wltli the reasous 'Thex'efore, the given iu tuc application for coudonation of delay.

¶47

appllcatiou (I.A. No.Ol) desexvcs to be axid is liereuy rejected.

¶48

Consequcuuy, tlie appeal is also d^iiaissed as tiuie ban'ed.

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

I.M. Quddusi G. Minhajuddin Judge Judge

Gyanendra Khunte and Anr. v. Bajrang and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gyanendra Khunte and Anr. v. Bajrang and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Land Acquisition Officer and Anr. Vs Prabal Kumar and 2 Others

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Surjeet Kaur and Others

Rajendra Kumar Netam Vs Chandrasekhar Tiwari and Others

Agrawal Iron Industries Vs Steel Auhtority of India Ltd. and Ors.

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Yogeshwari Bai and Ors.

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Omkar Aprasad and Ors.