IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (227) No. 4))0 OF 2009 PETITIONER NON—APPLICANT NO. 3 ’ 0 VERSUS Smt. Tulsi Bai Widow of Late Prakash Sahu, aged about 22 years, R/o Village Bhendsar, Post — Bhakhara, RS. 85 Tahsil Bhakhara, District Dhamtari (C.G.) Ramesh Sahu son OE Gopal Sahu, aged about 22 years, R/o Rajatalab, Nai Basti, near Baba Kirana Stores, Police Station Civil Lines, Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) 1 (Driver of vehicle No. CG 06 A 50y” gay/y Rajesh Patel son of J.R. Patel, R/o Shyam Nagar, Post Ravigram, Police Station Telibandha, Raipur (C.G.) RESPONDENTS 1 . CLAIMANT SIN$LE ENgH The New India Assurancs Company Limited, through — Divisional Manager the New India Assurance Compan Limited “‘“L W ”r4 £wf/1y2’j Bilaspur jig’Floor Ramarqlfade—Geiaa‘e, / 'J’zvézé Kazkda- am“ W Xerf/V/ [6' é/J’“ \ NON—APPLICANT NO. 1 NON-APPLICANT 3 , NO. 2 NON—APPLICANT 4. NO. 4 NON-APPLICANT 5‘ NO. 5 vehicle No. CG 06 A 501;”W V zé/z/f% Sagani Bai wife of Baldev Sahu, aged about 60 years, Baldev son of late Suklal Sahu, aged about 65 years, Both (respondent no. 4 85 5) R/o village Bhendsar, Post — Bhakhara, P.S. 8s Tahsil Bhakhara, District Dhamtari (C.G.) (Owner of ‘ ; WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA >44 éw @ PETlTiONER Non—applicant No. 3 RESPONDENTS smt. Tutsi Bai and athers. Claimant Shri Sourabh Shanna! ccunsei fm' the petitinner. WRIT PETITIQN UNDERVARTICLE 22? OF THE CONSTiTUTieN Q lNmA ORALoRnER (momma; The petitioner herein is aggrieved b)? the order dated 22-1 $2009 {Annexure Pm passed by the ix Additional Motor ’Accident Siaims Trébunai, Raipur, whereby dosing the petitioner’s right to fne repiy to the claim petition med by respendent No.1 Tuisi Bai‘ Counse! for :he petitiener submiie that in View of Rule 240 of the MP. Meter Vehicte Rutes, 1&394 the provisions containeii in Order 8 of C.P.C. have net been made applicabie in proceedings i enquiry befere the Claims Tribunat‘ He submits that the ciaim petition was filed in Juiy, 2909 and the petitioner had entered appearance by fiiing Vakalatnema before the Ciaims Tribunal on 0’2—{i8-2009r Awarding it) trim even ihe rteiay in filing written statement was not inerdinater (2) Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and in View at taw teid down by this Court in lCICi Lombard vs. Gaura Singh Nishad and others reported in 2008t2) C.G.L.J. 310 holding that the provisions eontained in Order 8 Rule ‘l & 10 of 6.9.8. are not applicable in proceeding before the Claims Tribunat this Sourt is of the opin‘wn that the impugaed urder £5 prima facie mt sustainabie am has bee“ passed by we ieamed Claims Tribunal withaut gurisdictien. {3) As a resutt thi$ writ petitior; is dispased 0f with a direc‘ion mat if the petitioner submits his reply to the claim petiticm within a period at four weekS’ fram the date 0f passing of this order, the Claims Tribunai shall take the reply I Mitten statement an reeard and shall ihereafter proeeed with the ciaim petition in acenrdance with haw. Sd//- ‘KPrashant Kumar Mishra Judge