^ * (^ w^l IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT_OF^CHHATnSGARH AT BILASPUR rCHHATTISGARHf M;A. No^ of 2010 •- -I^I^^j^ FS^ ;&-3.@.^i6^ fca^1 APPELLANT APPLICANT. .-.••^•^^ 9-s®^-^^0' ^•-•••"" RESPONDENTS :1) :2) :: Commissioner, Municipal •"^Ai Corporation, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) Versus Smt. Kanisa Begum, aged about 60 years, W/o. Mohd. Sheikh Firoz. Malka B, aged 18 years, S/o. Sheikh Firoz Both R/o. Santoshi Nagar, Raipur, P.S. Tikrapara, Raipur(C.G.) Mohan, S/o. Satish Sahu, aged 27 years, R/o. Lalpur P.S. Tikrapara, Raipur (C.G.) Shyam Kumar Kedia, aged 22 years, S/o. Paresh Kumar Kediya, R/o. Krishna Nagar, Boriya Road, Raipur (C.G.) :3) :4) :5) Oriental Insurance Company, Madina Building, Raipur (C.G.) NON-APPLICANTS APPEAL UNDER ORDER 43 RULE ltd)OF CPC Ki.^ '-„:> m<^coijMV<^€^^Li'iKGAR^ S.B: Hcm'ldeSlmPrashantKmriarMfcshra M.A.No. 49/2010 APPELLANT : ConMtussiimer. Municroal CN'norat^ Versus RESPONDENTS :^^^^^^^^^^ S^^ AooearanGe: .: :'1;1,:- '"'1:.;. '.,: ^,1'. ::-':11'. ShriP^ikajAgrawal,^ounsetfortheapp^llant. aaid 4 Qfhers OKALORDER (17.06.2010) r Heard ott admission. ! (2) In aclaim petition preferred by the Glmmants/respondents No. 1 and2, the Commissipner, Mumcipal Corporatic^ Raip^ withanoticeoftheprocee<||higson21/12A)6foilheari petitionbefbmtheMOtorAccid€<itClmfflsTribimal(m28/12/^ i smdComfflissiorier,]^mcipalCotpomtio the date of hearmg and was proceeded ex-parte and ^thefeafter an •^' awardwaspassedonl8/'09X)8. und^r (3) The appellant m re^withSectiQnlSlCPCoiitheground^t^ Order9Rule 13 -^-••.^.;-:-r.. since the MuniGipaI Corporation was ncrt made a party, tiw^^ s Commissioner of the CorpQration coirid not be^^^^^ service and as tfaere ^^ misioinder ofpaj^ llie ^parte^ o ^:. 28/12/06 aNtheex^artea^^ datedl8/09/08 deserves to be set aside. • •'•, :':1:1 .^^. ',::'.^^^^ '.;::,:" ;- (4) Leamed Goiirt ^»elow has observed that j notice of the claim petNon was served on the Commissioner, Municipal Corpo^ Raipuron 21/12/06 which is evident fi-om tfae receipt available in the rewrd coatainin^lAie seal ofMimicipal Cor^^ the perspn who had received the notiGe. It has also been observed that the Commissioner being Chief Executive Officer oftiie Corporation was the of&cer representm^ impleadment 6r rion-service ofnotice on the Corporation cannot be a ground for setting asideUie ex-parte award. (5) In the memo ofapp^ the appellant has ^ rmsed any spe^ ground that even the Commissioner was not served with the nolice insteadllieonlygrouhdratsedisthatservice^^^^^ Municipal Corporatiofla cannot be treated as service on1l^ Corporation. (6) AJfter gping tiirough tiie order passed by the court bek>w IJiis court does not findthattlusappeatraisesanyjsubstoi^ its entertainment. The appellant has failed to explain satisfactorily abbut his non-q?pearance before the Clatms Tnl^inal. (7) The appeal is devoid ofmerit. It is dismissed at the admission stage. te: Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge