Dismissed

Ratan Sai v. Ashok Kumar Agariya

Chhattisgarh HC14 Dec 2016MAC/1364/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge considered IA for dispensing notice to a non-appearing respondent and allowed it. Regarding an IA for condoning a 231-day delay in appeal due to bereavement, the Court found reasons unsatisfactory and dismissed both the condonation petition and the appeal as barred by time.

What did the court decide?

Notice to respondent No. 1 dispensed with. Application for condonation of delay dismissed. Appeal dismissed as time-barred.

Ratan Sai Vs Ashok Kumar Agariya — Chhattisgarh HC (2016) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

Misc. Appeal (C) No.1364 of 2016

¶5

1. Ratan Sai S/o Late Bodhi Ram, Aged About 39 Years R/o Telipara, P.S. City Kotwali, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶6

2. Lalita D/o Ratan Sai, Aged About 18 Years R/o Telipara, P.S. City Kotwali, Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ................(Claimants)

¶7

---- Appellants

¶8

Versus

¶9

1. Ashok Kumar Agariya S/o Shri Sidhnath Agariya, Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Khajuriya, P.S. Madwas, Distt. Sidhi (M.P.) .................(Driver Of Trailer No. C.G.04 J A 1356)

¶10

2. Pawan Kumar Agrawal S/o Hansraj Agrawal, R/o Plot No.125, T P Nagar, Korba, Distt. Korba, Chhattisgarh .................(Owner Of Trailer No. C.G.04 J A 1356)

¶11

3. National Insurance Company Limited, Through The Divisional Manager, Vyapar Vihar Road, Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh .................(Insurer Of Trailer No. C.G.04 J A 1356)

¶12

---- Respondents

¶13

For appellant : Smt. M. Asha, Advocate For respondent No.3 : Shri Anil Gulati, Advocate None for respondent No.2 though served. Notice issued to respondent No.1 through usual mode returned unserved.

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice Chandra Bhushan Bajpai

¶15

Order On Board

¶16

14.12.2016

¶17

Heard on IA No.02/16 filed under Order 41 Rule 14()4) of the Code of Civil Procedure for dispensing with the issuance of notice to respondents 1 & 2.

¶18

2 . It is prayed on behalf of the appellants that the said application may be considered for respondent No.1 only. It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that respondent No.1 remained ex-parte during trial, hence the appellants may be permitted to dispense for issuance of notice to respondent No.1.

¶19

¶20

3 . As prayed, IA No.02/16 is hereby allowed. The appellants are dispensed with service of notice to respondent No.1.

¶21

4 . Also heard on Ia No.01/16 for condonation of delay in filing the appeal as the appeal has been preferred after 231 days of its limitation.

¶22

5 . It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that after the sudden demise of Kousalya Bai , wife of appellant No.1 & mother of appellant No.2, they suffered with mental agony and when recovered up to some extent, they approached the counsel and filed the instant appeal, hence, the delay is bonafide, unintentional and the same may be condoned and the appeal may be heard on its merits.

¶23

6 . A perusal of the copy of award dated 10.11.2015, it appears that the appellants had received the copy of the award under the provisions of Section 168(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, and they were duly represented since the presentation of the claim case before the Tribunal on 15.12.2014 and during the award passed on 10.11.2015.

¶24

7 . There is no disclosure of fact whether the appellants/claimants had received any awarded amount or not.

¶25

8 . Upon consideration of the entire facts, the reasons for delay is not satisfactorily explained. After consideration of the entire facts, delay of 231 days is not satisfactorily explained, hence, the application is dismissed as not maintainable.

¶26

¶27

9 . As a consequence, the appeal too is dismissed as being

¶28

barred by time.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

(Chandra Bhushan Bajpai)

¶31

JUDGE

¶32

Bini

Ratan Sai v. Ashok Kumar Agariya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ratan Sai v. Ashok Kumar Agariya

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

Umesh Kumar Pandey Vs Jagtaar Singh Chima

Tarun Chauhan Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Durgesh Dongare Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Basanti Vs Parmeshwari

Sanjay Agrawal Vs Union Of India

Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Puniya Bai Yadav