IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRFT PETI'nON (227) No. ^?^ /2011 SiNGi^ MCH PETITIONER" Non-applicant No.3 Reliance General Company Limited Insurance Through : its Legal Qfficer, 3Q 1, \\\^^3' 302 Corporate House 169 RNT Markef, Opposite Jhabua Tower, ^•e-^'^"" Indore(M.P.) <.5^:^ VERSUS R'ESPONDENTS Applicarit 1. Non-aDRlicant No.l 2. \»^'' \. Shri&m Chouhan S/p Ramsai, aged :;ayout 30 years, R/o Dhondhipara, Korba, P.S. • C.S.E.B. Chowki, Korba, Tahsil 8s District - KorbafC.G.) Tenjin Pawa S/o Nadbutsi Yadav, aged ;about 24 years R/o Mainpaf, P.S. —Kamleshwar (Rewakhar), Disfrict - Surguja (C.G.) HarekrishnaJhaS/O.Gajanand. Jha, aged about 28 years, R/o Rewakhar,i",P.S, — -Kamleshwar, District - Surgu]a;(<3;G.)- , Non-applicant No.2 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OE THE CONSTITUTIONOF'INDIA 1. PARTICULARS OR THE PETITIONERfS) As given^r|;theicause,title. ^ ?.'.-R^RTieUtAgS:lB 'EHERESPONDENTOS) As siven!in Ihe (j ';T'I:IE;.''eAEr'SiB/'ORE)ER<i^GAlNST 3. PARTICUIARS WmGH.I'HE PE'FI1'IC );sias,M^QE ^ \N'^v OTP HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WritPetition (227)No. 57 of2011 PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Versus Shriram Chouhan & Others WRTT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 227 OE THE CONSTFTUTION OF INDIA fSB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aearwal, J.) Present : ShriSourabhSharma,Advocateforthepetitioner. ORALORDER (Passedon 10.01.2011) 1. The instant petitioii is directed against tiie order dated 29.07.2010, passed bythe Addl. MotorAccident Claims Tribunal, Korba, in Claim Case No. 20/09, whereby and whereunder the petitioner's application filed under Order 9 Rule 7 ofCPC was dismissed. 2. The facts, as projected by the petitioner is that the respondent No. 1 Shriram Chouhan filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the respondent No. 2 & 3 and the petitioner. The insurance company instructed Shri Sourabh Sharma, Advocate, to appear in the case. As Shri Sharma was unable to go to Korba on 28.04.10, he instructed Shri Tikam Sao, Advocate, to appear in the case butdue to inadverteiice he could not appear in the case and fhe trial court proceeded exparte against the petitioner. On the vCTy next day i.e. 29.04.10, the application filed by the petitioner ^ Sahu under Order 9 Rule 7 was also dismissed on the ground that no cogent reasons have been assigned for non appearance. 3. Having heard the counsel appearing for the petitioner and having perused the order impugned, in the considered opinion ofthis court, the order impugned is not susteinable in law. The valid reason was assigned by the petitioner which was not considered by the Tribunal while rejecting theapplication filed under Order 9 Rule 7 of CPC. It is also pertinent to note that till that date Ifae respondent No. 2 & 3 were not served in thecase and even after dismissal of application the case was fixed for their appearances, therefore, the Tribunal ought to have allowed the applicationofthe petitioner. 4. In view ofabove, the petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. 5. The impugned order dated 29.07.2010 is hereby set aside and the application filed by the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 7 ofCPC is allowed subject to payment ofa sum ofRs. 1000/- as costs payable to the claimants within a period of one month. The Tribunal shal! pennit the petitioner to file his written within a period ofone month from today and then shall proceed with the caseon its own merits in accordance with law. No order asto costs. 6. Since this petition is heard in tiie absence of respondents, they are fi^e to move with an appropriate application, ifaggrieved. No order asto costs. Sd//- N.K. Agrawal Judge v^\ '•