HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BjLASPUR Writ Petition .(C) No. 1123 of 2008 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Lti, ICIC! Towers, Bandra, Kuria Compiex, Bandra (East) Mumbai, through its Legaf IVianager, V.R. Piaza, Bilaspur (C.G) Versus 1 Gaura Singh Nsshad, s/o Shri Dukhu Ram Nishad, aged about 45 years 2 Harpat Singh, son of Shri Gaura Singh Nishad, aged about !7 years, through his father Shri Gaura Singh Nishad, belng his natura! guardian. 3 Hemant Kumar, s/o Shri Gaura Singh Nishad, aged about 24 years, .CLAIIVIANTS Ail residents of Village Khairy, Post Gurra, Thana Bhatapara Gramin District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 Sunderlal Satnami, son of Shri Shankar Satnami, aged not known to the petitioner, resident of Vijiage rajadhaar, Thana Bhatapara Gramin District Raipur, Chhatlisgarh. .Owner of the Vehicle WRIT PETITiON UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTiON OF JNDIA ADpearance: Shri Amrito Das, counsel for the petitioner. ORAi. ORDER (22.02.2008) SUNILKUMARSISSiHA.J. Heard on admission. By this writ petstion, chaitenge is made to that part of order dated 30.1.2008 passed by the Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhatapara, in Claim Case no.24/2007 by which the right ofthe petitioner \ <^^5^ W.P.tCyNo. 1123/2008 to file written statement has been closed by the Tribunal by proceeding under Order 8 Rule 1 read with Rule 10 of the C.P.C. The petitioner is an insurance Company which has been impleaded as non applicant no.2 in the daim petitson fiied by the claimants/respondents No.1 to 3 herein. The notice of the ciaim petition was served on the petitioner Company on 31.12.2007, Counsel for the Insurance Company caused his appearance on 04.1.2008 and prayed for time for filing written statement on whlch a date of 16.1.2008 was fixed. On 16.1.2008, some documents were fiied by the ciaimants and again a time was sought by the Insurance Company and it was granted upto 30.1.2008. On 30.1 .2008, again certain documents were filed by the owner of the vehicie i.e., respondent no.4 herein and the insurance Company further prayed for time to flle written statement, but this time the Tribunal refused to grant time and uitimateiy it closed the right of insurance Company to fi(e written statement and after framing the issue, the matter was fixed for settling on 02nd Feb. 2008. !t is stated that tili now the evidence has not been taken and the date of evidence is now fixed as 26th of Feb. 2008. Learned counsei for the petitioner argues that the Clalms Tribunal erred in law in strictSy compiying wlth the provisions of order 8 rule 1 read with Rule 10 of the C.P.C. He submits that accordmg to the ruies applicabie for conducting proceedings ot' claim case, these provislons of C.P.C. \¥erenot avasiabie to the Tribunai and the Tribunal has acted in excess of jurisdiction by strictly compiying them In the matter of the petitioner. He refers to RuJe 240 of M.P (C.G) Motor Vehicles Rutes,1994. i have heard learned counsei for the petltioner at length and have also perused the records ofthe writ petition. Ruie 240 of the M.P.(C.G) Motor Vehides Rules, 1994 provides for procedure to be foilowed by the C!aims tribunai in hoiding enquiries. !t provides for appllcation of certain provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in express words it says that save as otherwise expressly provided in the Act or these rutes, the foiiovt/ing provisions of the First Schedule to the Code of Civij Procedure 1908 (5 of 1908) namely, those contained in Order V, Rules 9 to 13 and 15 to 20, Order 'm S \%J/ W.P.(QNo. 1123/2008 ^ ^ IX, Order XVISi, Rules 3 to 10, Order XVI, Rules 2 to 21, Order XViI, Order XXI and Order XXII, Rules 1 to 3 shail appjyto proceedings before a Ciaims Tribunal in so tar as they may be appjscable thereto. A bare reading of these provisions would show that the provisions of Order 8 Ruie 1 or Order 8 Rule 10 of C.P.C. have not been made applicable by these ruies to the proceedings to be drawn by the Claims Tribunai while holdlng the enquiries. More over, in the present case, the petitioner had caused appearance through sts counsel on 04.1.2008 and the matter was fixed for 16.1.20C8 for filing wntifcen statement, on that date certain documents were fiied, therefore, again time was sought and the matter was fixed for 31.1.2008 and on that date aiso copy of the pollcy was fiied by the owner, respondent no.4 herein, as stated by learned counsel for the petitloner and the petitioner on this ground had prayed for time to file written statement but the time was denied and uitimately the Tribuna! proceeded So ciose the right of the petitjoner to fije written statement taking recourse to the provisions of the Order 8 Rule 1 readwithRuietOC.P.C. !n the present scenario of the case, i deem it appropriate to give an opportunity to the Insurance Company to fi!e their written statement. Therefore, the jmpugned order is set aside. The Insurance Company is dlrected to fi!e its written statement withln a period of 15 days from today. The Ctaims Tribunal shait take the written statement on record and if necessary, shali recast the issues in light of the written statement and shall proceed to decide the claim petition in accordance with law. The petition stands finaliy disposed of with the aforesaid observations. it is made ciear that thls order has been passed exparte and if any party feeis aggrieved by thls order, they shall be at iiberty to approach this court with a suitabie prayer. —— C.c.as perrules. §d/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge /RQO/