BEFQRE THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 1151 P ^^ PETITIONER/ NON-APPLICANT N0. 3 €^ -:"-YL. ^f-^ A^5>^^ ^^^^ :...%^:^". .y',..^^"...-'" (CHHATTISGARH) W.P. (227) No. ^^3 of 2010 Manager, Oriental Insurancff Company Limited, Through-Branch Manager Oriental tnsuranca Company Limited Second Floor Madina Building Jail Road, Raip^ (C.G.) •^^' .Ao- VERSUS RESPONDENT N0.1 APPLICANT ^ 1. Paras ram Sahu, aged about 55 years, S/o Shri Amaru Sahu, R/a Village Bhurkuri, Tahsil-Abhatpur District- Raipur, Police Station . Abharpur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2. Rajesh Kumar,aged about 34 yeare S/o Ramdhani, R/o Manuhar, P.8 & Tahsil-Gajipur(U.P.) 3. Munebat Abdul Riyaj Ali, 8/0 Munebal Abdul Mehraj Ali, R/ii Jadupur, Bala&ur, P.S. - TOWII Balasur, Balasur (Orissa) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CQNSTITUTION OF INDIA. RESPQNDENT N0. 2 NON-APPLICANT N0.1 RESPONDENT N0. 3 NON-APPLICANT N0. 2 ^ HIOH COURT OF CHHATnSGARH AT BILASPUR Sinute Bench: Hon'bte Shri Justfce Prashant Kumar Mishra Writ Pfifitkm f227l No. S228 / 2(MO PETmONER Manager, Orientat InsuranceCompanyLh-nited RESR3NDENTS Paras ram Sahu and c^iere. Shri Sudhir Verma, aaunsel for the petltioner. Shri Shivendu Pandya, counsel for respondert No.l. PErrrioN UNDER ARTICUE 227 OF THE coNSTnrunoN OF INDIA ORALORDER (27.09.2MO) Leamed counset for the petfttoner woulcl submit that the responctente No.2 & 3 are the owner and driver of ttie offending vehMe and they teve been proceeded ex-parte in the trial Court. He would submit that even otherwise the said responctente woutd not be affet^ed by the outcome of the pr^ent writ pefition. (2) The leamed Motor Accklent Ctaims Tribunal has rejected the petitioner's appticatton uncter Order 9 Rute 7 of C.P.C. for setting a^ide the ex-parte order dated 10-12-2(X». On the said date the mattw was fixed for appearance of the non-claimants. It was found by the M.A.C.T. that the non- claimante No. 3/petitioner Insuranc®Company has faited to appear in spite of senm^ of iwrffce and Iherefore tiw Insurance Company was proceeded ex-parte. Application under Oreter 9 Rute 7 of C.P.C. was moved on the next date of hearing i.e. on 20-01-2010 which has been dfemissed by the MA.C.T. on 22^3-2010. (3) The reason ass^ned .or the eiqalanation offered for non-appeararwe was that the Vakalatnama sent to the Lawyer coutd not reach in time. The Tribunal has observed that the Vakalatnama was sent from the (nsuranc® Com^iny at Raipur to ttie couns^ of Raipur, thwefore delay of 40 da^ in detivety of Vakatafeiama does not appear to be proper. (4) In th®affidavit fited by the Sentor Divtetonal Manager of the petlBoner- ^impsavy in su^x)rt of ttiis writ petition it is mentioned ttiat the d^ay occurred because of mistake <rf the Cterk of Insurance Company as the '4^^^. ^I I / ^ -^- regular Clerk was on teave and that as soon as the regular Cterfc came back on his duty the mistake in dispateh and delwety ofthe Courts summon tothe respective Lawyer was detected and Vakateteiama was in fect sent to ttie Lawyer on 04-12-2009 whreh reached/detivered to the counset on 12-12-2009 whereas the ex-partewas already passed on 10-12-2009. (5) tn the opinion of thfe Court ttw afRdavit fited by the Senfor Divisional Manager of the petitioner-Company before this Court has explained in detail tiie circumstance in which the Vakatatnama eoutd not be recwved by the counsel wffliin time. (6) Ordinarity efforts should be made to dispose of the matter before the Court on merits and endeavour shoukl be madenot to pass ordws adverse to a party on mere technteat ground. Though, the M.A.C.T. was ftiUyjustified in passing the eartier order as the (nsurance Company had not properiy e^ained the detay in sending the Vakalatnama aml as to how it took 40 ctays time for sending the Vakatatnama to the counsel from one part of the cfty to the ofher part of the city, however a»eariier oteerved the affrelavit fited -in thfe CcHirt fully exptains the cireumstanc^, whteh is found to be satisfactory and therefore, the ex-parte order dated 10-12-2009 isset-aside. The teamed MA.C.T. shaU teke on recoret the written statement of the petitioner-Company and shatt proceed for trial in accordance with law. (7) The writ petitiwi stands atlowed. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge