First Appeal No. 242 of 2004. Case: Jagjitsingh Vs Shashikant Ramesh Tayde and Ors.. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | First Appeal No. 242 of 2004 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Vidya Umale, Advocate, holding for A.V. Khare, Advocate and For Respondents: Syed Owais Ahmed, Advocate |
| Judges | R. K. Deshpande, J. |
| Issue | Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Order IX Rule 4; Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166 |
| Judgement Date | December 23, 2015 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
R. K. Deshpande, J.
-
In Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 241 of 2001 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the respondent No. 1-claimant is held entitled to compensation of Rs. 3,81,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the petition, i.e. 10-9-2001, till its realization, after adjusting the amount already paid by the appellant towards no-fault liability. The owner of the vehicle is before this Court challenging the decision of the Tribunal.
-
The contentions of Ms Umale, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, are that the appellant was not served with the notice of Claim Petition No. 241 of 2001 and, therefore, he had no opportunity to contest the claim, that the earlier Claim Petition No. 67 of 1993 filed by the respondent No. 1-claimant was dismissed in default on 6-3-1995 and, therefore, the second Claim Petition No. 241 of 2001 was not maintainable for the same relief, and that the vehicle was insured with the respondent No. 2-National Insurance Company Ltd., which should have been held liable for payment of compensation.
-
The points for determination in the present appeal are as under:
-
In the memo of appeal, a specific ground is raised that the address of the appellant mentioned in the cause-title of the claim petition was not correct. The appellant was residing at Hingoli, whereas the address shown was of Parbhani. The Tribunal has observed that though the appellant, who was the respondent No. 1 in the claim petition, was served, he failed to appear in the matter. It is not in dispute that the address of the appellant was corrected on 1-8-2002 in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 241 of 2001. The appellant was shown to be the resident of Khurana Petrol Pump & Khurana Transport, Mondha Bazar, Hingoli, District Hingoli. The appellant does not dispute that he was the resident of this place. The correct address was supplied on 1-8-2002, on which the appellant was served, but he failed to appear. It cannot, therefore, be said that the appellant was not duly served with the notice of the second Claim Petition No. 241 of 2001.
-
Undisputedly, the earlier Claim Petition No. 67 of 1993 filed by the respondent No. 1-claimant for the same relief was dismissed in default on 6-3-1995. In view of the provision of...
To continue reading
Request your trial