lil HIGH GOURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH : BII-ASPU8 SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI S.R. NAYAK, CJ. WRIT PETITION N6.6574 OF 2605 PeTlTIONER Non^ADDticant No.3 RESPONDENTS ApplicantNo.1 AppUcant No. 2 Appticant No. 3 Applicant No. 4 ApplicantNo. S Vs. 1. 2 3. 4. 5. Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company Through ite Manager Vidhan Sabha Road Raipur(C.G.) Ram Prasad S/o Shiv Prasad Kashyap, Aged about48 years Savitri, W/oRamPrasad, Agedabout42 years AshokS/oRam Prasad, agedabout21 years Simmt S/o Surendra Kashyap, aged about4years Akash S/o Surendra teshyap, aged abut 6 yaars, Res. No. 4 and 5 aF&(nf"or throygh Natural guardian Grand Mother -Savitri W/o Ram Prasad Kashyap ResponcferitNo. 1 to&areresidentof DhelcaBilaspurC.G. RajuShrivas, S/o Not known, aged about 20 years, R/o Lodhipara, Bflaspur C.G. Gore Shrroas,S/o Not Known, Aged about 32 years, R/o Proprietor Star Hair CutUng Satoon, PratapChawk, Bitaspur C.G.: ! :. . L ., . Phooldulari W/o Late Surendra Kashyap Varsha D/o Late Surendra Kashyap, aged aboutS months, Minor: through - mother Fooldulari W/o Late Surendra Kashyap Respondent No. Sand 9both areresjdent of Lodhipara, Bilaspur (G.G.) Present: Mr. Rajesh Pandey, learhed counsel for the pelitioner. ORALORDER (Passed on21"1 January, 2006) The petitioner-lnsurance Companyalleging that thereisdorinivance between the owner of the motor vehicle involved in the accidefit and the dependents; of the deceased who are the claimants in putting; forth the ctaim for compensation and contonding that the vehicld insured by it dld Non-ApplicantNo. 1 6. Non-Applicant No. 2 7. Non-Appltcant No.4 8. Non-Applicant No.5 8. ^ :^11 ^'ya )S.ii.-!>t.<1i..fc^.awt . (t —a-— (^rnys jsf^- not involve in the accident, made an appljcation to summon the investigating officer in Criminal Case No. 1143/2005 asawitness (n the case. That application has been rejected by ttie MACT. Hence, this writ petition under Artlcle 227ofthe Constitution of tndfa. In thls writ petltion the Insurance Company has also assailed another order made by the MACT refusing to summon the records of the Criminal Case pending on the file oftheACJM, Bilaspur. (2) Heard, teamed counsel for thepetitioner andperusedthe impugned order. (3) The petitioner has utterly feiled to make out any ground of jurisdicttonal flaw or material irregularity norcould it be said that there is failure of justice. Although learned counsel for the petltionercited the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. K. Vijaya Laxmi & Ors1, thatjudgmentof leamed Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court could be distinguished on facts. In the application filed by the petitioner.it is not disctosed that the driver of which vehicte was guilty of rash ancl negligent dnving and in causing the aceident. In the absence of such plea in the application, it cannot be said that the MACT has not exercised the discretion vested In it ]udlc!ously. It is not a fit case to be enteiteined under ArBcle 227 of the Conslitution. The writ petitton is aGcordingly dismissed, however,wiUi rio costs. t Sd/- ~v Cbief JusOce \ ^ Judge • \ 1.1 (2004) ACC 602