^ y % .^3 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASP Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. Appellant Respondents Misc.Appeal (Cl No. 89 of2008 I.C.l.C.l. Lombard Motor tnsurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, At First Floor Bukhari Enterprise, Link Road, Bilaspur (C.G.) vereus 1. Smt. Chainkali, age 66 years Wd/o Late Devidutta Dubey, Caste-Brahmin, R/o Village Rank, Tahsil Masturi, Up-Tahsil Seepat, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. Pramod Kumar, age 25 years, S/o Late Devidutta Dubey, Caste-Brahmin, R/o Village Rank, Tahsil Masturi, Up-Tahsil Seepat, District Bilaspur (C.G.) (CLAIMANTS1 3. Gangaram Kurrey, age 25 years S/o Dayaram Kurrey, Village Podi, Thana Kusumunda, District Korba (C.G.) (DRIVER) 4. Sanjay Kedia S/o Shri Prakash Kedia, Proprietor of Ganesh Mineral, Akaltara, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) (OWNER1 Memoranum ofAppeal under Section 173 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act 1988 as amended bv Act of 1994 Present: Appellant by Shri Ashutosh Singh Gaharwar and Shri Sanchin Singh Rajput, learned counsel. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 22"" ofJanuary, 2008) Heard on admission. 2. The appellant/insurance company is aggrieved by an award dated 15.03.2007 passed by 6 Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (hereinafter referred to as the M.A.C.T.) in Claim Case No. 34/2006. After service of notice on the insurance company, it appeared before the M.A.C.T. and was represented through Shri K.K.Singh, Advocate. Time was granted to the insurance company to file written statement on 06.01.2007 and the same was extended from time to time and finally on 12.03.2007 also since no one had appeared on behalf of the insurance company, its right to flle written statement was closed. Thereafter on 13.03.2007 and 14.03.2007 also no one had appeared on behalf of the —2-- insurance company. The owner and driver were~atfeady proceeded ex parte by the M.A.C.T. Consequently, on 15.03.2007 the M.A.C.T. passed the impugned award. 3. It is obvious that the M.A.C.T. has proceeded to pass the award in the absence of any written statement or appearance by counsel on behalf of the insurance company, and therefore, an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the award would lie. 4. Shri Ashutosh Singh Gaharwar and Shri Sachin Singh Rajpur, learned counsel for the appellant sought permission to withdraw this appeal submitting that they would move an application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. before the M.A.C.T. 5. Reserving the aforesaid liberty, this miscellaneous appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. Sd/- Oilip Raosaheb Deshmukh /^( y