"^^y^yy^^s} ^•^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR [CHHATTISGARH1 J Misc. Appeal No. -S"^ OF 200^' APPELLANT "insurerl The Oriental Insurance /_ Company Limited, through the Divisional Manager, Division Office, Jail Road', Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENTS: ..(Claimants) ^ <>'"> . v\f tiy Driver of vehicle ^—1. Smt. Ravindar Kaur ^/ Ghai, widow of Late Shri Chanchal Singh Ghai, aged about 34 years, Occupation House Wife. 2. Minor Karan Singh Ghai, aged about 11 years, son of Late Shri Chanchal Singh Ghai, 3. Minor Kiran Deep Singh ^" Ghai, aged about 1 year, son of Late Shri Chanchal Singh Ghai. Nos.2 & 3 are Minors through their natural guardian respondent No.l Smt. Ravindar Kaur Ghai. All residents of New Puraina, Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar, Raipur. ^—-^4. Dheeraj Kumar, aged <»~ about 32 years, son of Shri Shivram Soni, f II -11 Owner of vehicle APPEAL U/S /' 73 resident of Adkahohada, Kondagaon, District Bastar (C.G.) •f5. Ashok Kumar Sharma, son of Shri Madan Lal Sharma, resident of Main Road Sukma, Tehsil Sukma, District Dantewada (C.G.) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT \^^ AGAINST THE AWARD/ORDER DATED 20.07.2005 PASSED IN CLAIM CASE N0.56/04 BY THE 3rd ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAlMS TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH PRESIDED OVER BY SHRI SHIVMANGAL PANDEY. a HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR CORAM: Hon'bleShri I.M. Quddusi, J. & Hon'bte Shri Prashanf Kymar Mishra, J. M.A.No. 579 of 2006 RESPONDENTS The Orienta! Insurance Company Limited Versus Smt. Ravindar Kaur and others. Appearance: Shri Abhishek Sinha and Shri Ghanshyam Patel, counsel for the appellant. Shri Sachin Singh Rajput, counsel for respondents No.1 to 3. Shri Vikram Dixit, counsel for respondent No.4. ORAL ORDER (23/02/2011) Following oral order of M. Quddusi. J. the Court was passed by This appeal has been filed against the impugned award of lil Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribuna!. Raipur (C.G.) passed in Claim Case NQ. 56/2004 awarding Rs. 9,29,480?- to the claimants. (2) The brief facts of the case are thaton 19/01/2004 at.about 5.15 p.m. deceased Chanchal Singh Ghai was driving his jeep No. C.G.04/9100 and was going towards Kanker and when he reached near viltage Devpuri, truck bearing registration No. C.G.18 ZC/2136 coming from Abhanpur side which was driven rashly and negligently by non- applicant No.1 dashed the jeep and caused the accident, due to which Chanchal Singh Ghai received injuries and died on the spot. Deceased was aged about 38 years, He was working as driver and also as Commission Agent in B.S. Bhasin & Sons Oil Company and was earning Rs.8000/- per month. Ciaimants have claimed compensation of Rs.26,40,000/-. -. -2.. ~ (3) Learned counsel for the appellant has raised the contention that the appeltant/lnsurance Company was not granted adequate opportunity to defend his case. We have perused the order-sheet. He has pointed out that on 09/05/20CS the claims Tribunal directed that on the next date either the appellant shal! keep its witnesses ready or fi!e process within three days. (4) Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that process was filed within three days. However, the next date was fixed for 24/06/2005 on which date when the case was taken up no witness was present but at that time the appellant had not desired to file a fresh process or has also not sought time or sought adjournment for the purpose of production of witnesses and therefore the Court observed that the case was taken up several times but no witness was present and therefore fixed for 04/07/2005 for fina! arguments. But on 04/07/2005 the case was adjourned but on that date too the appellant did not intend to move any app!ication for production of witnesses and ultimately on 06/07/2005 the final arguments were heard. On that date too nothing was pressed or the application was moved for production of witnesses either through Court or otherwise. (5) Ttie appeal was time ban-ed and no application for condonation of detay was filed at the time of filing of the appeal. However, later on same was filed and delay was condoned but no steps were taken to get the application for stay of execution of the impugned award listed and uitimately the application was listed after more than four years and in the meantime amount involved in the award was deposited by the appellant and ultimately the application for stay of the execution M.C.P. No. 755/2006 waswithdrawnon 11/08/2009. ./- V- '•..>y>""~"^ '^ 6'.?) i-^r 'tl 5 (6) In the above cireumstances, we find no illegality or impropriety in the impugned award and also the flndings given by the claims Tribunal. (7) Therefore, the appeal fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge