? -.^ss^gsSKSS'S .^^ilfrwit'iiilMKBglKBXS illlfilBii^BIBflBBI WMSS^^^SiiiliSSSSi ^1i:i?^i'^BSH8SIBB8MS%s':;:<l':®'?l^/L[iiiffiK''1 !l:J)i:Hii- K;la^^;i:ii®i(B^^^^S91ii^ul?;;K:''-i':^ -ffi3j ;^ HlGHGOURTOFCHHATTISGARHATBiLASPUR Sinale Bench : Hon'bie Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. !.C.C.Nb.37S/2007 RESPONDENTS The Oriental Insurance Company Through: Divisional Manager, Malwiya Naaar, Durg, Tahsil and District Durg (CG) versys 1,; Birjha Bai W/o Late KartikRam, Aged about 45 years, R/o Village Sambda, Post Karanjai, Bhilai.i Tahsil & District Durg(CG) j 2. Beduram .Sinha, S/o Unknown,. R/o Village Chikhli, P/S Mohan Nagar, Durg, District Durg (CG). Through: Govsrdhan Sahu, S/o Chpwaram, R/o Village Karhidih, Tahsii.and District Durg (CG). OcGUpation - Tractor Driver, Tractor No.CG 04/ZQ/4490& TrolleyNo. CG 04/ZQ/4491. 3. Goverdhari Sahu, S/o Chowa.ram R/o Viliage Karhidih, Tahsil and District Ouig(CG) Occupation Tractor Owner, Tractor No. G.G. 04/ZQ/4490 & Troliey No. CG 04^ZQM491 /- ;%'-'.'>_, Appiication underOrder 41 Ru!e 21 oftheC.P.C. ^ • -.''. . .' • " : •. • '•'.'.'•'••.'•':.'• ' '•• 'Present : Shri Vipin Tiwari, counselfcr the applicanyinsurance company. ORALORDER (Passed on 12tn September, 2007) Heard on admission. : (2) The applicant/insurance company has filed an applicafion under Order 41 Rule 21 of the C.P.C. fQr re-hearing of Miscellaneoys, Appeal(C.)!Mo,; ^ll •si-fss.y?^ ;;l.*;.,i;^_;;':^ •/''''•"'•.•'1";:;^-'^ ^"-:'-:'..^^^. 2- i:"'/! (3) Miscellaneous Appea! (G.) No.22/2007 was finaljy heard and allowed on 24-08-2007. The applicant/insufance companY was sewed with a notice and Vakaiatnama had also been filed. Learned counsel for the applicant/insurancecompanyclidnotappearwhenthe appealwas cailed for hearing. Since no one appeared for the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle, the appeal was finally heard andallowed. (4) Learned counsel for the applicant/insurance company has pressed the application only on one ground, i.e., on 24.08.2007, he was present in Court upto 3:00 P.M. and had left the Courtsince he was not wetl. Grounds No.3 and 4 in the appjication were not pressed byleamedcounsel f0rtheapp!icant/insuraricecompany. (5) Miseellanepus Appeal (C.) No.22/2007 was filed by the claimant for enttancement of compensation avrarded by the X' Additional Motor Acddents CSaims Tribunai, Durg in Claim Case No.132/2005. On24.08.2007,whentheappealwasfinallyheard,no oneappearedfQrtheowner,driverorthejnsurancecompany. (6) itwas the duty ofthe counsel for the insurance company, if he was present in Court, to inform theCourtabout leavingthe Court due to illness. Nothing of the sort was done by the iearned counsel for the applicant. The app!icanVinsurance company had notice. Vakatatnama had been flled. Counsel vras admittedly presentin Court on 24.08.2007 fill 3:00 P.M. There is nothirQ to sub^itiate^ that he was prevented by sufFicient cause frorr) appearing befgr.e the Courtat the time of hearfng. No medical certificate has been fiied. 1 lil; - ~ ; : . • : .,: '- \ (7) In thjs view ofthe matter, I d6 not find any sufficientcausefor granting theappSicatipn under Order 41 Rule 21 of the C.P.C. The application, i.e., the M.C.C. is accordingly dismissed at the stage ofi admission. Sd/- DiUpRaosahebDeshmuidi Judge