Dismissed

Naresh Kumar Verma v. Reliance General Insurance Co,ltd.

Chhattisgarh HC9 Jan 2013REVP/152/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this review petition under CPC Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114, the High Court of Chhattisgarh examined whether the order allowing an insurance company's appeal and exonerating the applicant driver should be reviewed. The court held the petition lacked substance as no error apparent on the face of the record was shown.

What did the court decide?

Review Petition No. 152 of 2012 dismissed. The order dated 3.8.2012 allowing the appeal remains undisrupted.

Naresh Kumar Verma Vs Reliance General Insurance Co,ltd. — Insurance | Chhattisgarh HC (2013)

¶1

['•":

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH Cngla BencIT AT BILASPUR (C.G.l REVIEW PETITION N0. -^^2^/2012ftf<mfck^,g.)

¶3

APPLICANT

¶4

Respondent No. 3

¶5

?<e^>"^^•y^"..-••"""
^aW ,••

¶6

Kumar Verma, son of Lakhan Verraa, aged about 35 years, resident of Village Risda, P.S. and Tahsil Baloda Bazar, District Balod^Bazar, Chhattisgarh

¶7

VBRSUS

¶8

E^SPONDENTS

¶9

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, through its Legal Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Shop No. 412-413, 4& Floor, Ravi Bhavan Near Jaistambh Chowk Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

¶11

Dashrath Sahu, son of Mattu Lal Sahu, aged about 35 years

¶12

Smt. Satrupa, wife of Dashrath Sahu, aged about 30 years

¶13

Both resident of Village Risda, P.S. 8s Tahsil Baloda Bazar, Dist-ict Baloda Bazar, Chhattisgarh

¶14

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 R/W

¶15

SECTION 114 OF^THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908

¶16

p^-

¶17

" "'•raw.g,"1^—^'.^^

¶18

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶19

Review Petition No.152 of 2012

¶20

AppUcant Respondent No.3

¶21

Naresh Kumar Verma

¶22

Versus

¶23

Respondents Reliance General Insurance Company Limited and others

ORDER

(9th January, 2013)

G. Minhaiuddin, J :

,...

This petition has been filed under Section 1 14 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for review of the order dated 3.8.2012 passed by this Court in MA(c) No.564/12, whereby and whereunder allowing the appeal, non-applicant/insurance company has been exonerated from the liability to pay compensation and the same has been fastened upon the applicanVowner-cum-driver.

¶29

A claim petition for compensation was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short "the Act") by the parents of deceased Hem Kumar in respect of his death in a vehicular accident and an award of Rs.2,08,000/was passed in favour of the claimants/parents and against the applicant/owner-cum-driver as well as non-applicant/insurance company, fastening the liability jointly and severally upon them.

¶30

Aggrieved by the said award dated 9.1.2012, the non-applicant/insurance company preferred a miscellaneous appeal i.e. M.A.(c) No.564/12 under Section 173 of the Act and the same was allowed by order dated 3.8.2012, which is under review.

¶31

The present review petition has been filed on the ground that although the applicant/owner-cum-driver was served notice for 3.8.2012, but as the counsel for the-applicant was busy before the other Bench, he could not remain present before this Bench and as the appeal was fixed for motion hearing, therefore, the '^'i.nsel was_np^^(pecting that final arguments will be heard

¶32

¶33

¶34

and the appeal will be disposed of on the same date. On this ground, the review petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 3.8.2012 and for passing a fresh order after giving opportunity of hearing to the appticant.

¶35

On perusing the record of the case in chamber as per provisions of Rule 90(2) of the Chhattisgarh High Court Rules, 2007, 1 am of the considered opinion that the applicant has not been able to show any error much less an error apparent on the face of the record, on account of which the order dated 3.8.2012 can be reviewed under0rder47 Rule 1 ofthe CPC.

¶36

Resultantly, the review petition being ^i/ithoutany substance is hereby '*^

¶37

dismissed.

¶38

Sd/G. Minhajuddin Judge

¶39

¶40

Naresh Kumar Verma v. Reliance General Insurance Co,ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naresh Kumar Verma v. Reliance General Insurance Co,ltd.

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

Ashish Kumar Vs Ashwani Kumar and Others

Mst.Budhwara Bai Vs Basant Kumar Dewangan and Ors.

Vinod Kumar Singh Vs Phagu Ram and Others

Sanjay Kumar Dewangan Anors Vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors.

Shankar Lal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Koushal Sahu Vs M/S Indian Boiler Form Baldeobag and Anr.