Dismissed

The National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Smt. P.Anuradha and 2 Others

Telangana HC28 Sept 2022CRP/3962/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition challenged the dismissal of an application to condone a 2089-day delay in filing an ex-parte decree application. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the presumption of service of notices rebuts the petitioner's claim of non-service absent production of original notices.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs awarded. Pending miscellaneous applications stand closed.

The National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Smt… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

[³²¹⁶ ]

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN

¶7

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3962 OF 2013

¶8

Petition under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code, aggrieved by the order dated O21O712012 in 1.A.No.296112012 in O.P.No.302/2004 dated on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum-ll Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.llagar.

¶9

Between:

¶10

The National lnsurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Divil [/anager, D.O-|V, Twin, Cities Market Complex, Hyderabad. ...PETITIONERYRESPONDENT No.2 1 Smt. P.Anuradha, W/o. Late S.Sai Shekar, Occ: Housewife, No. 11-14-1611 , NTR Nagar, L.B.Nagar, Saroornagar Mdl, R.R.District.

¶11

AND

¶12

2 S.Sai Vamshi Krishna, S/o. Late S.Sai Shekar, Aged 10 years Occ: Student, Minor, being Rep. by his natural mother i.e. Resp.No.1

¶13

...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS

¶14

A.Govinda Swamy, S/o. Annagiri, Rl/o. Swamy Reddpaly Village, Veerachettipally Vellore District, Tamilnadu State.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶16

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2013(CRPMP. NO: 5324 OF 2013)

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed there with, the High Court may be pleased To stay the execution of decree passed in O.P.No. 3O2 of 2OO4, daled O2lO7l2O12 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-ll Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar,^pending the final disposal of the main CRP.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRl. KOTA SUBBA RAO

¶19

Counsel forthe Respondents: None Appeared

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^M.LAXMAN

¶22

CML REVISION PETITION No.3962 of 2O13

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

The prt'sent Civil Rcvision Petition is filed against the order dated O2.O7.2012 passed in I.A.No.296 1 of 2Ol2ⁱⁿ O.P. No.302 of 2OO4 by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (ll Additional District Judgc), Ranga Reddy District at l,.ll. Nagar, vvhcrcin and rvhcrcb-' the application filed by the petitioncr hercin for condoning the delay of 2089 days in frling application undcr Order X Rulc I3 ol Code of Civil Procedure, was dismissed.

¶25

The revision petitioner is the insurcr o[ the crime vehicle, which involvcri in the accident. Respondcnt Nos. 1 and 2 are the claimants and respondent No.3 is the owner of the vehicle.

¶26

The claim petition is filed seeking compensation for death of husband of respondent No. 1 in the motor vehicle accident owned by the respondent No.3. The claim petition was allowed ex-parte. After knowing the passing of the award, the revision petitioner filed an application to set aside thc ex parte decree along with the present impugned application for condoning detay of 2Og9 days. The reason given by the pctitioner for delay was that they have

¶27

not been served with any notice in the Original Petition, as such, they were not aware of it until the claimants' Counsel approached their orrce for deposit of the amounts by showing the award.

¶28

The claimants/ respondent Nos. I and 2 opposed the application contending that revision petitioner is conscious of the claim proceedings and notices were served on them but they did not respond. According to them, the revision petitioner falsely pleaded that no notice has bccn scrved.

¶29

The court below on appreciation of facts of both parties, found that noticc was servcd on the pctitioner and after service only, he was set ex parte and ex parte decree was passed. Consequently, the impugned application was dismissed.

¶30

As seen from the impugned proceedings, the court below has referred the office endorsement dated 16.07.2OO4 to the effect that notices of respondent Nos. I and 2 were served and on the basis of such endorsement, the respondents were set ex parteWhen the revision petitioner disputes service of notice, he could have summoned the notice forms basing on which the endorsement was made. However, such recourse is not made. The court proceedings have some presumptive value and such presumption was not rebutted by the petitioner by calling for the notices which are foundation for making endorsement.^There is

¶31

an inordinate delay of 2O89 days. In such circumstances, I do not find any merit to interfere in the findings of thc Court below.

¶32

Learned Counsel reprcscnting the revision petitioner submitted thal a liberty may be given to the pctitioner to file appropriate proceedings for recovery of such amounts from the owner. It is needless say that i[ law permits, he is entitled to initiate such proceedings.

¶33

Accordingly, this Civit Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶34

As a sequei, pending miscellaneous applications, if

¶35

aly, shall stand closed.

¶36

Sd/- K.SAILESHI DEPUTY^REGISTRAR

¶37

.r(

¶38

,TRUE^COPY// SECTION^OFFICER

¶39

To' r Thc chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Cum -^{ll Addl'District} , llt€Sf^{*tl"f3+i-&r'aua'$o,AdvocatetoPUCl}

¶40

Two^{CD CoPies}

¶41

One^{SPare CoPY} AKB

HIGH COURT

DATED: 2810912022

ORDER

CRP.No.3962 of 2013

UGil.h<br>)
r,):' 1 g JAlt 2i123 .<br>tt-*;

¶48

CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS DISMISSED NO COSTS

¶49

,{AWC

The National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Smt. P.Anuradha and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Smt. P.Anuradha and 2 Others

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

M Agro Exports, Guntur Dist Vs B Kalyani, R.R.Dist and Others

Sara Bhasker Goud Vs Yeruva Chinnamma

Sri Rathan Prakash Paul, Vs Hemendra v.Shah

Sri Ramesh Gandhi Vs Smt. R. Swathi

Miss P.Suhar Latha Vs Sri Robert W Long

Dt.Collector Mhabubnagar Vs R.Ramakrishna Reddy