Smt. Lalita Chawada v. Manoj Kumar

Chhattisgarh HC5 Dec 2024MCC/962/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Restoration of misc. appeal; MCC No. 962 of 2017; M.A. No. 118/2006; enhancement of amount of compensation; claimants Smt. Lalita Chawada, Kumari Richa Chawda, Ku. Deepshikha Chawda; respondents Manoj Kumar, Gurvinder Singh Bhatia, The New India Insurance Co. Ltd.; non-appearance of applicant in second round; notice to insurer unserved ('left the place/ address'); counsel directed to accept notice; application allowed; appeal restored to original number; High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur; Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge; order dated 06/12/2024.

What did the court decide?

Restoration of M.A. No. 118/2006 to its original number ¶¶24

Smt. Lalita Chawada Vs Manoj Kumar — Chhattisgarh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

1 / 2

2024:CGHC:48196

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MCC No. 962 of 20 17

¶6

Smt. Lalita Chawada W/o Wd/o Harshad Chawada Aged About 50 Years R/o Harshit Vihar Colony, Hirapur Road, P. S. Aamanaka, Tehsil And DistrictRaipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶7

Kumari Richa Chawda Aged About 28 Years Children of Harshad Chawada (through, Mother, Appellant No.1 ) R/o Harshit Vihar Colony, Hirapur Road, P. S. Aamanaka, Tehsil and District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶8

Ku. Deepshikha Chawda Aged About 23 Years Children of Harshad Chawada, (Thro' Mother, Appellant No. 1). R/o Harshit Vihar Colony, Hirapur Road P. S. Aamanak, Tehsil and District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

... Applicants/claimants

¶10

versus

¶11

Manoj Kumar S/o S/o Brijinandan Singh Aged About 45 Years R/o Dayal Band Bilaspur, Tehsil and District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

Gurvinder Singh Bhatia S/o S/o A. S. Bhatia R/o Dayal Band Bilaspur, Tehsil and District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Br. Office- 02, By Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Kutchery Chowk, Jail Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

For Applicant : None. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Vedant Shadangi, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

¶17

ORDER ON BOARD PAWAN KUMAR 06/12/2024 JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA

¶18

There is no appearance on behalf of applicant even when the case is taken up for hearing in the second round.

¶19

Notice sent to Respondent No. 3 is reported to be unserved mentioning ‘left the place/ address.’

¶20

2 / 2

¶21

Mr. Azad Siddiqui, learned counsel who normally appears for The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. is present in this Court, he is directed to accept notice.

¶22

As this MCC is filed only for restoration of MA No. 118/2006 which was filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation, it is heard finally.

¶23

On due consideration of the pleadings made in the application and further considering that the Misc. Appeal was filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of amount of compensation, application is allowed.

¶24

It is directed that the M.A. No. 118/2006 (Smt. Lalita Chawada and others vs. Manoj Kumar and others) is restored to its original number.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

(Parth Prateem Sahu) JUDGE

¶27

pwn

Smt. Lalita Chawada v. Manoj Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Lalita Chawada v. Manoj Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bineet Kumar Jaiswal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Employee State Insurance Corporation Vs M/s. Navdurga Fuel Private Ltd.

Bholanath Joshi (Dead), through Legal Representatives Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mohan Vs (Deleted), Parvati, (Died)

Siyasharan Vs Ramkumar

Supriya Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh