t%5K-;?.;-^ ^" swi-'"" .~t-».>nU "i^' IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH WRITPETITION (U/A227) N0.- \Ufc\ OF 2010 PETITIONER The Reliance General Insurance Company Limited., Through Branch Manager, Branch Office, 4 Floor, Ravi Bhawan, Jaistambh Chowk, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) [Insurer of Vehicle Truck (Tata DI bearing registration No. C.G. 04/JA/5343) Policy No. 1506082334006412 valid from 25/10/2008 to 24/10/2009] RESPONDENTS .eW^ ^Q^W VERSUS Narayan Das S/o Late Bhagoliram, Aged abourt 45 years, Occupation - Bardana/Traders Work, R/o - Gogaon (Near Shitala Mandir) Gudhiyari, Raipiir, Tahsil & District - Raipm- (C.G.) (AppIicant/Claimant) Premlal Baghel S/o Chintaram Baghel, aged about 24 years, Occupation - Vehicle I3nvCT, R/o - Navagarh (Dewangan Mohalla), Janjgir-Champa, District - Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Present R/o - Sarora (in the house of Shyamlal Sahu), Police Station - Uria, Tahsil & District - Raipur (C.G.) (Non-applicant/Non-Claimant No. 1) Yogendra Kumar Sahu, S/o Chainu Ram Sahu, aged about 35 years, Occupation - Tmck Bhada Business, R/o - Village Sarora, Urla, Raipur, Tahsil & District - Raipur (C.G.) (Non-appIicant/Non-Claimant No. 2) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTIONS _33l^_alaQXza-aa.*aa^>.d -fn-T<:l±"=>.< ..^^..^-.^.ifc-—- .4-L HIQH COURT QF CHHA.TTISG^tH, BILASPUR SB: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA W. Pi U/A 2271 No.1481 of 2010 PETITIONER The ReUauce General Insurauce Company Limited Vs. RESPONDENTS Narayaa Das and two others WRIT PBTITION UNDER ARTICJ-B 227^F THE CONSTITUTION OF IKDIA APPEAJEtANCE: Mr. Sbivendu Pandya, counsel for fhe Petitioner. ORDER (ORAU (18.11.2010J Heard. This writ petition bas been filed agamst the impugned order dated 02.02.2010 & 12.03.2010 passed by the 9th Addl. Mdotor Accident Clauns Tribuiial, Raipur. Notices were issued to fhe respondents. Ofiice report uidicates fhat respondents 1 85 3 have been served, but fhey are not represented. Notice on respondent no.2 has not been served. However, siace fhe said respondent is driver of fhe offendtag vehicle aad has been proceeded ex-parte before fhe Clainis Tnbunal, the present writ petition is finaUy disposed of by fhis order. . In fhe claun petition preferred by respondent no. 1 Narayan Das, the petitioner was proceeded ex-parte on 02.02.2010. The petitioner later on appeared before the Claiuis Tribunal on 12.03.2010 along-with aa appUcation under Order 9 Rule 7 offhe Code of CivU Procedure for setting aside fhe ex-parte order. ^ % r?i 9 S According to fhe petitioner, the sununons received by the Raipur Office was sent to Indore Of&ce for seekiag inatructions, however, the Vakalatriaxria dispatched by the Indore office could reach to the counsel by Courier on 11.03.2010, tlierefore, uo appearance could be made on previous date that is 02.02.2010. Leanied counsel for the petitioner submits fhat fhere is 110 deUberate attem.pt or iatention on the part of tbe petitioner in reinaining absent on 2.2.2010 be&re the Tribunal, fhereforc, fhe ex-parte order deserves to be set aside. The Tribunat has disinissed tbe appUcation by observing fhat the dates on which the inatter was sent fi-oin Raipur ofi&ce to Indore office aud dispatch of Vakalataaxua fix>m Indore oflE[ce has not been mentioned, therefore, the ex-parte order caiuiot be set aside as no proper explanation has been offered. In the opinion of fhis Court, the claims Tribunal has acted in a hyper techuical nianner while considering ttte prayer for setting aside the exparte order. It is not the case fhat fhe petitioner reiaaiaed absent on a nuraber of occasions aiid was deliberately avoiding appearance ia the Court. As soon as tbe Vakalatnaina was received by fhe Counsel, appearance was inade along-with an application for settmg aside fhe ex-parte order. In fhe opuuon of this court, efforts should be laade to resolve the dispute on luerits and the parties sbould be afForded full aad cpinplete opportunity to present their case unless it is deinonstrably found that the party applyiag for setting aside fhe order has deliberately reinained absent to defeat the procediue in fh.e court or to protract fhe Iitigation. However, ia the present case, no such mference caa be drawn. The petitioner has 1 j— '~^. ~l~is.' '. ^ appeared before fhe Tribunal withjn 6 weeks fi-om fhe date of passuig of the exparte order. In view of the above, fhe instant petition succeeds aad is aUowed. The impugned order dated 02.02.2010 and 12.03.2010 are set aside. The petitioner shatl subinit lus written statenient wifhin a inonfh froin today and shatl pay costs ofRs.500/- to the claunant. Costs shall also be paid withiu a period ofone inonfh. Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge Rao