Allowed

Tarun Verma v. Kailasho Devi and Anr.

Delhi HC5 Dec 2024CM(M)/3889/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition under Article 227 setting aside an Order dismissing a Section 5 Limitation Act application. The Court held that strict CPC procedure does not apply to claims under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act and accepted late filing of the Written Statement to avoid prejudice to respondent-driver/owner.

What did the court decide?

Impugned Order dated 18.10.2024 set aside; Written Statement taken on record; two opportunities granted to conclude evidence.

Tarun Verma Vs Kailasho Devi and Anr. — Motor Accident Claims | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~3

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CM(M) 3889/2024 & CM APPL. 68250/2024

¶4

TARUN VERMA .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Umeesh Suri & Mr. Avinash Suri, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

KAILASHO DEVI AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Satyendra Kumar Yadav, Advocate throughVC.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

O R D E R

05.12.2024

The present Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner assailing the Order dated 18.10.2024 vide which the Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 filed on behalf of the Petitioners/Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 seeking condonation of delay in filing the Written Statement, has been dismissed by the learned Claim Tribunal.

¶14

Learned counsel for the Petitioners/Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submits that the Petitioners/Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. As per the Insurance Company, the Driving Licence of the driver had expired at the time of accident, and it is pertinent to bring on record the complete facts. It is submitted that the Petitioners/Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were being represented through a Counsel before the learned Claim Tribunal who had participated in the proceedings and even crossexamined the witnesses produced on behalf of the Claimants/Respondents

¶15

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/12/2024 at 10:55:14

¶16

herein. Even the Insurance Company has already led its evidence. At this stage, it was not noticed that the Reply/Written Statement of the Petitioners/Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 was not on record. Serious prejudice would be caused to the Petitioners/Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, if the Written Statement is not taken on record.

¶17

It is further submitted that the Written Statement has been filed on behalf of the Petitioners/Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, to which a Replication has also been filed on behalf of the Respondents/Claimants.

¶18

A formal Order of taking the Written Statement on record shall not result in any prejudice to the Respondents/Claimants as only the evidence of the Petitioners/Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, now remains to be recorded.

¶19

Learned counsel for the Respondents/Claimants has vehemently opposed the present Petition on the ground that the Petitioners/Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were being duly represented by the learned counsel and no ignorance of law on the part of the Petitioners/Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, can be pleaded.

¶20

6. Submissions heard.

¶21

At the outset, it may be observed that the present Petition arises out of a Claim for compensation under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which is essentially an Enquiry conducted for ascertaining the fair and just compensation to be payable to the Respondents/Claimants. The strict procedure of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 cannot be imported to such an Enquiry.

¶22

As per the record and the submissions, it is evident that the Petitioners/Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, who are lay persons, had engaged a Counsel who had also participated in the trial and cross-examined the

¶23

This is a digitally signed order.

¶24

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/12/2024 at 10:55:14

¶25

Claimants’ witnesses. The inadvertence in not filing the Written Statement is writ large on the face of record.

¶26

Serious prejudice would be caused to the Petitioners/Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 if they are not allowed to place on record the Written Statement/their defence.

¶27

In view of above, the Petition is allowed and the impugned Order dated 18.10.2024 is set aside and the Written Statement filed on behalf of the Petitioners/Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, is taken on record.

¶28

The Replication to the Written Statement has already been filed on behalf of the Respondents/Claimants.

¶29

Two opportunities are granted to the Petitioners/Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to conclude their evidence and thereafter, the Claim Petition shall be decided in accordance with law.

¶30

Accordingly, the Petition is disposed of.

¶31

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J

¶32

DECEMBER 5, 2024 S.Sharma

¶33

This is a digitally signed order.

¶34

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/12/2024 at 10:55:14

Tarun Verma v. Kailasho Devi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tarun Verma v. Kailasho Devi and Anr.

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

Prem Kumar Gogna and Anr. Vs Madhu Gogna and Ors.

Veecon Media and Broadcasting Services Ltd. Vs Canara Bank

M/S Ace Furniture Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Hilife Furniture Private Limited

Aster Eye Hospital & Anr. Vs Master Ankit

M/S Jes and Ben Groupo Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Shakti Trading Co.

Suresh Kumar Vs Akhilesh Singh

S and S Freight Systems Vs Bb Brewmasters Ventures Pvt. Ltd.

Nishi Dhir through Spa Holder Meenu Chopra Vs Ashish Dhir

Mohd. Naushad Alam Vs Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.

Brijesh Mishra and Ors. Vs Ved Prakash and Ors.

The Amba Deep Flat Owners Welfare Society Vs Ajay Garg & Ors.

Parbati and Ors. Vs the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Ors.

Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Deepshikha Yadav & Ors.

Navbharat Infrastructure Co. Vs Vkr Eshwaran