Dismissed

Umesh Kumar Pandey v. Jagtaar Singh Chima

Chhattisgarh HC13 Dec 2016MAC/1106/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed an application for condonation of delay in filing a Miscellaneous Appeal Case (MAC). The court held the appeal was barred by limitation as the appellant failed to show a satisfactory cause for the 358-day delay, noting the copy of the award was not issued by the Tribunal under Section 168(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

What did the court decide?

Applications seeking condonation of delay and the Miscellaneous Appeal were dismissed.

Umesh Kumar Pandey Vs Jagtaar Singh Chima — Execution and Attachment | Chhattisgarh HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

MAC No. 1106 of 2016

¶5

Umesh Kumar Pandey S/o Vishambhar Nath Pandey, Aged About 26 Years By Caste- Brahman, R/o- Qu. No. 25, Thana Para, Village- Parpa, P.S. Frezerpur (Parpa) Jagdalpur, DistrictBastar (Chhattisgarh),.......(Claimant).

¶6

---- Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Jagtaar Singh Chima S/o Harisingh Chima, Aged About 45 Years By Caste- Sikkh, R/o- Danteshwari Ward, Jagdalpur, DistrictBastar, (Chhattisgarh), Present Address- Geedam Road Bahadurgda Jagdalpur, District- Bastar, (Chhattisgarh),...... (Driver And Owner).

¶9

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., Issue Office- 10003-E-8, Rico, Industrial Area, Sitapur, Jaipur, Rajsthan, Current Address Commercial Building Devendra Nagar Raipur, (Chhattisgarh).

¶10

---- Respondents

¶11

For Appellant : Shri Vivek Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Shri P.K. Tulsyan, Advocate Notice issued to respondent 2 returned unserved as left.

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Justice Chandra Bhushan Bajpai Order On Board

¶13

13/12/2016

¶14

Heard on I.A.No.1/2016 for condonation of delay in filing the appeal as the instant MAC has been preferred after 358 days of its limitation.

¶15

Learned counsel would pray that the appellant has no knowledge about the limitation period, therefore, there is delay in filing the appeal. The delay is bonafide, hence, the same may be condoned and the matter may be admitted for consideration.

¶16

¶17

Perused I.A.No.1/2016, award dated 5.5.2015.

¶18

The appellant/claimant had filed the instant MAC after 358 days of its limitation for enhancement of the compensation. There is no mention of the fact as to when the claimant had received the copy of the award as per Section 168 (2) of the Motor Vehicles, Act.

¶19

From perusal of the copy of the award annexed along with the MAC, it appears that the certified copy of the award has been issued from the office of the District and Sessions Judge, Bastar- Jagdalpur attested by Head Copyist, goes to show that this is not the copy given to the appellant/claimant under Section 168 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act by the Tribunal itself.

¶20

The claimant/appellant was represented before the trial Court, the argument that the appellant had no knowledge about the limitation for filing the appeal cannot be held as satisfactory cause for filing the instant MAC after 358 days. As the appellant/claimant failed to demonstrate the satisfactory cause of the delay in filing the appeal, I.A.No.1/2016 is dismissed.

¶21

Consequently, the MAC is also dismissed as barred by limitation. Sd/

¶22

(Chandra Bhushan Bajpai) Judge

Umesh Kumar Pandey v. Jagtaar Singh Chima

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umesh Kumar Pandey v. Jagtaar Singh Chima

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

Satvant Singh Vs Kamla Pottam and Ors.

Shri Ram General Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Rukhmani Bai

Ahivaran Vs Sunni Bai

Tarun Chauhan Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Durgesh Dongare Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Manesh Markam and Ors. Vs State Of C.g.