c -& •v^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTCSGARH AT BILASPUR WRITPETETIONfC) N0. 77^ /2008 PETCTCONER ^^Z&WT^ /^ Q0..--^y. ..'\-A •r^ ^p-'',^ (vs-^\ ^sy ^y....- ' ^,^" RESPONDENTS Hott- ^'pti-^^r' / Subhash Kumar Mishra, Aged about 48 years, S/o. Late Shri Ramnarayan Mishra, R/o. Old Sarkanda, Bagicha- para, Bilaspur, Tahsil & District Bilaspur (C.&.). VERSUS 1) Shri D.C. 6aba, Aged about 48 years, S/o. Shri Tallaram Gaba, R/o. Village Lukera, Tahsil Sangariya, bistrict Hanumanganj, Rajasthan. 2) Gurubachan Singh, Aged about 30 years, S/o. Sadhu Singh Jat, R/o. Village Budasan, Tahsil Kadi, bistrict Mehsana (Gujrat) Both presently resident of Arya Colony, Tifra/ Through Shri DaJvej Singh, Aged about 60 years, S/o. Harvansh Singh, R/o, Qtr. No. 26, Arya Colony, Tifra, Tahsil <& District Bilaspur (C.G.). 3) balvej Singh @ Gyaniji, S/o. Harvansh Singh, R/o. Qtr.No. 26, Arya Colony, Tifra, Tahsil <& District Bilaspur (C.<5.). .4) National Insurance Company, D.0. 3 Kwis Road, Amritsar (Panjab) Through-Branch Manager, National Insurance Company, Taha Complex, Priyadarsani Nagar, Bilaspur (C.(5.) WRIT PETITEON UNDER ARTECLE 227 OF THE CONSTETUTION OF INDIA u^ IIICTI tla^lf 'S^f ^II^KTI^ ^•a1<i<i<o, [®i<rti^^< ^.....y.^...2Z3— W^ 200? ^n^T <q?W (^3^4) 3n^T ^t Ri'iicb WT3n^tsF1RW (Smgle Bench: Hon'bIeMr. N.K. Agarwal,J.) 12.05.2009 Shri Anand Kumar Tiwari, Shri Gautam Khetrapal, Ad^jocate 4-dvocate for the petitioner. for the respondentNo. 4. Leamed counsel appearing) that the respondent No. 1 to 3 ^ claims Tribunal and the main con| the respondent No. 4/Insumnce Coj With the consent ofthe part| The instant petition is d| 07.12.2007, passed by the Add Tribunal, Bilaspur, whereby the p Order 7 Rule 14 ofCPC, for taki] rejected, and vide order dated l^ filed by the claimant has also been Learned counsel appearing way of application for taking dc wants to place the bills and vouch on record, which are necessary foi the Tribunal has wrongly rejected «bWf<?1^1^ ^w^S ^f (s<<! <Pnt^i< '^3fRlH3TI^T for the parties present, submits \7GTe remained exparte before the ^est is betiveen the petitioner and (npany. ?s, the matter is heard finally. rected against the order dated itional Motor Accident Claims rtitioner's appiication filed under |ig document on record, has been |.01.2008, the review application rejected, ; pbr the petitioner submits that by lcument on record, the ciaimant ^rs, regarding damage of vehicle, [the just decision ofthe case, but s|uch application. 5?R^T ^^T ^UK^ <M-II^IM—FS/95—11/2008—1 ,00,000. lf^^ ^ '3^ ^FTRT^, '^ft^T^, (®i<ni<ilj,< 311^1^tft^ wiTsn^T'sraw ^ y>; $• «<i*i<ni n»*ii<i> "W(2QO ^^ T^T (<1?^^GT) Sal <^t<1W< <11^t1 oil^<l -Lt Per contra, Shri Gautam Kt No. 4/Insurance Company, suj Tribunal. After he^ring both the pa^ impugned order, I am of the c| justified in rejecting the applicat| because the application was f( commencement of trial, and secct assessing the just compensation Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The petition is accordini 07.12.2007 is hereby set aside. It is directed that the Tnl record. The respondent No. 4/Ins| document in rebuttal, ifso advise< Certified copy as per mles. chl^<fl< ^Hdf^ l^t ^^cK '^sfRm^ti^ft letrapal, counsel for the respondent ported the order passed by the ties, having pemsed the record and Dinion that the Tribimal was not on filed by the claimant/petitioner led by the claimant before the adly, it would help the Tribuiial in is envisaged under section 168 of ly allowed and the order dated )unal shall take the document on 1.1rance Company is at libei-ty to file Sd/- N.K.Agarwal Judge ^ra^T ^^T ^"tl^ <H-li^lM—FS/95—11/2008—1 ,00,000.