Partly allowed

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Prakash Kaur

Chhattisgarh HC7 Dec 2016MAC/1033/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh allowed an application dispensing the appellant with service of notice to an ex-parte respondent. It dismissed an application to condone a 359-day limitation lapse and dismissed the appeal as impermissible under the Motor Vehicles Act.

What did the court decide?

Application I.A.No.4/2016 allowed; Application I.A.No.1/2015 and the MAC appeal dismissed as barred by limitation.

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs… — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2016)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

MAC No. 1033 of 2015

¶4

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited 570, Naigaoan Cross Road, Beside Royal Industrial Estate, Wadala (West Mumbai) Maharashtra Pin 400031- Branch Office- 3^rd Floor, Ravi Bhawan, Jaistambh Chowk, Raipur, At Present- 5^th Floor, National Corporate Park, G.E. Road, Police Station Saraswati Nagar, Civil and Revenue Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Insurer)

¶5

---- Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Smt. Prakash Kaur S/o Late Lakhvinder Singh, aged about 40 years, R/o Vill. Darbari Toli, Jashpurnagar, Tahsil and Dist. Jashpur, P.S. Jashpur, Civil and Revenue Dist. Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

¶8

Ku. Gurmit Kaur D/o Lakhvinder Singh aged about 20 years, R/o Vill. Darbari Toli, Jashpurnagar, Tahsil and Dist. Jashpur, P.S. Jashpur, Civil and Revenue Dist. Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

¶9

Balbir Singh S/o Lakhvinder Singh aged about 18 years, R/o Vill. Darbari Toli, Jashpurnagar, Tahsil and Dist. Jashpur, P.S. Jashpur, Civil and Revenue Dist. Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

Minor Daljit Kaur D/o Lakhvinder Singh aged about 15 years, minor and hence representing through the mother Smt. Prakash Kaur, R/o Vill. Darbari Toli, Jashpurnagar, Tahsil and Dist. Jashpur, P.S. Jashpur, Civil and Revenue Dist. Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

Minor Ranvir Singh S/o Lakhvinder Singh aged about 12 years, minor and hence representing through the mother Smt. Prakash Kaur, R/o Vill. Darbari Toli, Jashpurnagar, Tahsil and Dist. Jashpur, P.S. Jashpur, Civil and Revenue Dist. Jashpur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

Smt. Savinder Singh W/o Late Gurudayal Singh aged about 80 years, R/o Vill. Darbari Toli, Jashpurnagar, Tahsil and Dist. Jashpur, P.S. Jashpur, Civil and Revenue Dist. Jashpur, Chhattisgarh (Claimants)

¶13

Rajiv Kumar Singh S/o Bramhdev Singh aged about 34 years, ITI Itki Ranchi Police Station Sukhdevnagar, Civil and Revenue Dist. Ranchi (Jharkhand) (Owner and Driver)

¶14

---- Respondents

¶15

For Appellant – Smt. Smita Jha, Advocate. For Respondents 1 to 6 – Shri Rishikant Mahobia, Advocate.

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Justice Chandra Bhushan Bajpai Order on Board

¶17

07-12-2016

¶18

Heard on I.A.No.4/2016 for exemption from service of notice to respondent No.7.

¶19

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that as respondent No.7 Rajiv Kumar Singh remained ex-parte during trial before the concerned

¶20

-2-

¶21

Tribunal, hence, under the provision of Order 41 Rule 14 sub-rule 4 of the CPC he may be dispensed with service of notice.

¶22

On due consideration, I.A.No.4/2016 is hereby allowed. The appellant is dispensed with issuance of notice and service to respondent No.7.

¶23

Also heard on I.A.No.1/2015 for condonation of delay in filing appeal as the instant MAC has been preferred after 359 days of its limitation.

¶24

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that while complying the procedure of the appellant, delay of 359 days occurred in filing the instant MAC which is not deliberate, hence, the same may be condoned.

¶25

Perused the impugned award dated 12 May, 2014. Copy of the said award is true copy of the award. As this is not certified copy obtained from copying section of the Court below, it appears that this is a copy of the award given to authority of the appellant under the provision of Section 168(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Any procedural formalities does not give any right to the appellant for such delay and for filing the instant MAC so lately. The Court can understand delay of a few days in filing the MAC, but looking to the fact that the delay is about almost a year, in the considered view of this Court, the appellant has failed to explain such delay satisfactorily. Consequently, I.A.No.1/2015 is hereby dismissed as not maintainable. The MAC also stands dismissed being barred by limitation by 359 days.

¶26

The MAC dismissed.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

(Chandra Bhushan Bajpai)

¶29

JUDGE

¶30

Aadil

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Prakash Kaur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Prakash Kaur

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

Rajesh Vs State

Smt. Kavita Singh Vs Rahul Kumar Choubey

Vinay Mohan Mishra Vs State Of Madhya Pradesh Now Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd. Vs Ramesh Tamrakar

Smt. Mamta Chandra Vs Nandkumar

Balram Dubey Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Anr.