^^ ....^•^^^^^ ^•^s@-'^" 'y^^' ^ <- -If* ^J l'i^r; r^; ^F !-^ l.'^ .;'Jr?:.';J ;Y^; !^ rj tSENBiLE IStl-iiu.rj l^M ^80'" IN THEHON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH, BILASPUR (C.G.t WRITPET!TION N0. ^3 s^ /2005 PETITIONER (NON APPLICANT) : / Shri Durga Steel Traders, Through- Proprietor Jai ftakash Goel, S/o. Prabhu Dayal Goel, aged about 38 years, R/o. Gopal Golony Road, Ki-unhari, P.S. Kumhari, District Durg (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS (CLAIMANT) ^ 1. Apurva Kitmar Ghosh, S/o. A.K. Ghosh, aged about 39 years, R/o 20, M.I.G. Colony, Opposite Bharat Mata School, Tatibandh, P.S. Amanaka, Tehsil & District Raipur(C.©.) (NON APPLICANTl ^ 2. Rahmanuddin, S/o Asahaduddin Though- Shri Durga Steel Traders Kumhart, Proprietor Jai Prakash Goel, S/o. Prabhu Dayat Goel, Gopal Colony Road, Kumhari, P.S. Kumhari, District Durg (C.G.) V-'-'M \*IVK^^ 1 \'<V'^^L^- ;\ A- 2. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES2270F THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIAFORISSUANCEOFWRIT/WRITS, ORDER/ORDERS. OR/AND DIRECTION 2 DiRECTIONS IN THB NATURE OF CERTIORARI/ MANDAMUS, OR OF ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE NATURB. PARTICUIARS OF 'rasvEfrrnasER.t As per cause title. PARTICULAIKS OF THE RESPONDENTS : As per cause title. VJ^. > «t ditt ua d-oqT<||tllrt«;t»T^>tl<|<B,R<11'<iy'( Hi*ioi®<n^ yy •••?;'•*• an^srtRq?(i^fg^g) w^aoo^ 3iii!?imR'ii<i) garT3n$?TBHto tte. S^1T8R^lfeT3II^?r 19-10-2005 n^ely Shri AA.P.S. Bhatia, counse) Heard. ^ The facts of the case d<| respondents. Learned counsel for the p^ is the owner of avehicle nan^ely No.C.(3.-07/Zb-5877. The said which tookplaceon 19-7-2003. the said accident, and us a resillt, registration No.M.P.-29/4145, ^c f.iled against the petitioner be-1 dependents/legal heirs of Shri passed an award on 29-3-200p. respondent Np.t before the 5] Tribunal, Raipur which is stitl p^( moved an application for bringin^ in claim case No.52/2004 arisin4 5 Additional Motor Accident Claims order dated 23-8-2005 dismiss^d the ground that there was certified copy of the award wa^ "| the petitioner filed uncler OrdeilS '> <tiitiieBil'i*ti*ini'^rIs'S<!lui'«<i'< ^af^rsii^r ~ for the petitioner. not warrant to issue notice to the i^titioner subinits that the petitioner AAaruti Car bearing registration h/ehicle was involved in an accident. ^wo motor cycles werealso involvedin r, driver of one motor cycle bearin9 ^ashir Choubey died. The ckiim wtts fore the 1st M.A.C.T./Kanker by the Ao.shir' Choubey. The said Tribunal The second cloim was filed by Additionat Motor Accident Claims ^nding consideration. The petitioner the award dated 29-3-2005 passed out of the sa.me aCcident before the Tribunal, Raipur. The Tribuncit by ttie cpplicationof the petitioner on slay in making the oppiication and also not filed, as such appticationof Rule 1-A of the C.P.C. wasrejected. de if s; \ ^0,000 ^^l^.l''-'-^'^'^ ^ \3wiT<ii<<jetq;y-^^<|<i^R|ri|^|i^ ^^,^,..........W.£..S.^, sn^?T 'raq? (^pfg«iS) w^oo^ sii^aTOR'ii* craTan^Tanijw t,?- After hearing learned ci the records, I am of 'the opini delay in filin9 relevant documei arisingout of thesame acciden- Learned counsel for the copy of the award would be fil Delay in filing the applic^ directed to file certified cppy in ctaim case No.52/2004 by of 6 weeks from today. The other opplication s^ Company of Motor Cycles bear 3411 as necessBry party has dated 23-8-20050n the groui| compensation amount froma The order is bdd on the compensation amount from on^ either ownership of the vehiclj vehicle involved in the accidet compensatewho have insured The &rder passed by tl^s deserves to be set aside. <P|<i[n<tliliinY'fts'd'(Kit'<'si't ^aif^lsil^CT [urisel for the petitioner and perusing itn that the order is erroneous as the |t, i.e. award passed by other M.A.C.T. is a relevcmt documerit. petitioner submits that the certified ileli. lic^ition is condoned and the petitioner is |of the award dated 29-3-2005 passed le 1 M.A.C.T., Kcuiker, within aperiod s^eking impleadment of the Insuronce •|ng Nos. M.P.-29/4145 ond C.6.-04/ZE- Iso been rejected by the same order y that it is for the cldimant to claim pa^icuiar person/company. Face of it, as the claimdnt cannot cfaim person who has nothing to do with involved or who have not insured the )t. Only those insurers are liable to tfie vehicles, involved in the aGcident. 5 M.A.C.T., Raipur is erroneous and SPA ^oo \ / ii.J;! ^ XI-HC-78 WI*1«I^TIT^ ^•i?qT<u<4i<tq,t»i^|-M<i<»,Rrii<(4y< ,____zo,_^_^-^^^/^ sn^siqw (ijcil^d^) 3II^?T?'TR«ii* aaiT.aiT^id'iicb € ie- \ . by^he In view of the foregoing, oside and theapplication filed of the C.P.C. deserves to be allow< In view of this order, No.8753/2005 stdnd disposed of.| Parties are entitled for cer(tified eopy of th is order. <i>Klfn<ai *)i'wif'lflsx3tRttt;i'< ^aiKlHaii^?! f the order dated-23-8-2005 is Set petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 d. • ; : . . . M.(W.)P.No.3999/2005 and I.A. s<v- SatishK.^niiio"1 Judge ^, ^ ¥ ~f"