Dismissed

Savitri Devi and Ors. v. United India Insurance Company

Rajasthan HC3 Jul 2018CMAP/142/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a S.B. Civil Misc. Application seeking to recall an ex-parte order passed in a motor accident claim appeal due to alleged non-service. The court dismissed the application citing gross negligence on the part of the petitioner/applicant who failed to contact counsel or check court listings.

What did the court decide?

The recall application was dismissed as there was gross negligence by the petitioner in not keeping in touch with counsel or inquesting case status.

Savitri Devi and Ors. Vs United India Insurance Company — Rajasthan HC (2018) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 142/2018

¶3

¶4

S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 597/2006

¶5

Savitri Devi W/o Late Shri Gopinath, aged about 47 years, 2. Kumari Urmila @ Omi D/o Late Shri Gopinath, aged about 21 years,

¶6

Kumari Laliti D/o Late Shri Gopinath, aged about 19 years,

¶7

Kamlesh S/o Late Shri Gopinath, aged about 13 years,

¶8

Basant S/o Late Shri Gopinath, aged about 17 years,

¶9

Appellant No. 4 And 5 Are Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Savitri Devi W/o Late Shri Gopinath. All Are R/o Nimeda, Police Station Khandela, Tehsil Shrimadhopur, District Sikar, Rajasthan

¶10

----Appellants/ Applicants

¶11

Versus

¶12

United India Insurance Company Limited Through Regional Manager, D.o. Third C-97, Kalyan Vila, Subhash Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur At Present Insurance Company Jeep No. RJ 14-3 C-5801 Insurance Cover Note No. JR/02-831059 Insured Period 28.6.2002 to 27.6.2003.

¶13

Shivpal @ Sheopal Singh S/o Shri Dhannaram, B/c Jat , R/o Nimeda, Police Station Khandela, Tehsil Shrimadhopur, District Sikar, Owner Jeep No. RJ 14-3 C- 5801

¶14

Jagdish S/o Shri Dhannaram, B/c Jat , R/o Nimeda, Police Station Khandela, Tehsil Shrimadhopur, District Sikar, Driver Jeep No. Rj 14-3 C- 5801

¶15

----Respondents

¶16

For Applicant(s) : Mr. Babulal Gupta

¶17

(2 of 4) [CMAP-142/2018]

¶18

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BANWARI LAL SHARMA

¶19

Order

¶20

03/07/2018

¶21

Non- petitioners- claimants preferred S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 597/2006 against the impugned judgment and award dated 26.04.2005 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shahpura, District Jaipur in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 240/2003 (Savitri Devi And Ors. vs. United India Insurance And Ors.).

¶22

In that appeal, notices were issued to respondents and they were duly served and were being represented by their counsel.

¶23

When the aforesaid appeal came for hearing before this Court on 28.11.2017, no-one appeared on behalf of respondents, therefore after hearing appellants, the appeal was partly allowed vide order dated 28.11.2017.

¶24

Now, respondents preferred this application under Section 151 CPC for recalling the order dated 28.11.2017 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 597/2006.

¶25

Mr. Babulal Gupta learned counsel appearing on behalf of applicants submits that applicant/ respondent No. 2 was not aware about the status of the case as his counsel could not inform him regarding the status of the case from last so many years because the current location/ address of the applicant/ respondent has nowhere mentioned/ available on the record. The applicant has came to know about the ex-parte order only after receiving of the notice issued by Motor Accident Claims

¶26

(3 of 4)

¶27

[CMAP-142/2018]

¶28

Tribunal, Shrimadhopur for attachment of his land. Thereafter, applicant/ respondent No. 2 met with advocate and applied for the certified copy on 13.04.2018 which was received on 09.05.2018.

¶29

He submits that the appeal was decided ex parte without being given opportunity of hearing to the applicant and without any opportunity to put the case on his behalf, therefore in the interest of justice it is necessary that applicant may given opportunity of hearing by recalling the ex-parte order dated 28.11.2017 and the appeal may be decided afresh.

¶30

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants Mr. Babulal Gupta.

¶31

Since, the appeal was decided on 28.11.2017 and present application was filed on 24.05.2018 i.e. after about six months and it is not disputed that applicant was represented by his counsel. Applicant alleges that his counsel couldn’t inform him due to change of his address but he never pleaded that he informed the counsel regarding his new address. Further he didn’t plead that he ever contacted his counsel and asked regarding the proceedings of the appeal. Further, all information of case regarding listing and status is available on High Court website.

¶32

Learned counsel failed to satisfy this Court whether there is any law which bounds the counsel to inform his client rather it is the duty of client to keep in contact with his counsel and when the client himself is negligent and fails to contact his counsel, in that circumstance it cannot be said that counsel is on fault, therefore

¶33

(4 of 4)

¶34

[CMAP-142/2018]

¶35

looking to the gross negligence on part of petitioner there is no merit in this application, the same is dismissed.

¶36

(BANWARI LAL SHARMA),J

¶37

S. Kumawat/17

Savitri Devi and Ors. v. United India Insurance Company

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Savitri Devi and Ors. v. United India Insurance Company

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

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt Anita Gaur and Ors.

Bajrang Singh Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Basant Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Banwari Lal and Others Vs Temple Shri Narsinhji Maharaj and Anothe

Mohammed Shakil Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Krishan Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp