m- 7r Hi$H Q3URT GF CHHATTISGARH AT B¥LA$PUR ’ Singie Eench : Hon’bie Shri Diiig Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. Misceléaneous Appeai No.36$ of 2992 ”m‘ ;i§§§iican?1 Aweimm Mahagw Ram, ageé about 55 years, 8/0 Shri Laxman Rib Viliage Palna, RS. Bishrampwi, Distt. Bastar, (CG) Versus Ama! VishwaS, S/o Shri Ka!ipad Vishwa; Rxo Vinage Borebelé (Turedehi) P3. & Tah. Orissa, Disit. Ncwz'angpur, On'issa Present address- Nayamunda Para Jadalpw, DisttBasiar 2. B. Bechar, S/o not known, R/o Viiiage Turedehi, P.S. Raigarh, Distta Nova’angpur (OrissaP {Owner of me Vahicle) Apneai urgder 3ec‘tion 1‘33 {13 of the W‘iotar Vehicie Act. 1988. wowapwicams 1 . Res ponden’ts resemt : Shri Avinash K. Mishra, counSel for the aapeuant $hri Sanjay S. Agarwal, counsei for the réspondént No.3. QRAL DRDER @assed on 18‘” January, 2008} appeaL Heard on LA. No.607/2002 for candcnatibn of de§eiy in figing th§$ {2) Fer the {easens mentioned in the appl§catio;’1, thé de£ay is cmdomd. (3) Learmd counse$ fa:— the appenant prayed %hat the whereabouts of the resporzdervts No.1 & 2 are not known and there§ore, cuuid not be served. He further submitted that boéh the respoedenis N91 & 2 were ex eerte before ihe MACI and therefore, prayed thar servrce is resper‘zdents No.1 8: 2 be dispensecé Wifh. {4} Prayer is ne‘r opposed by the respondent No.3. o (5) Accordingty, service of notice on respondents No.1 & 2 is \ diseensed with. e P (6) At this stage, ieamed cwnse§ for :he,appei%ant and ’che insurance company Submitted that a $ett£ement has been amved ai beiween the parties whefeunder the insurance company shaH pay ‘a $um of Rs.24,5€}0}’4 (wéihout interest) over and above the comgensaimn awarded by the MAC? (7‘) Leamed counsel fo¥ the appeziant pfayed thai m terms of the sememen’i, ihis appeai may be dispeged 6f. Sdl- ‘ E {$)’ Ordered accomiagEy. /\Nf/Dilip Raos’aheb Deshmukh “in x /, x r ~ Judge‘ ‘mdm‘ .w‘