Allahabad High Court
Sunita And 5 Ors vs Sri Ram General Insurance Company ... on 5 August, 2021
Bench: Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Subhash Chand
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 37
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 272 of 2018
Appellant :- Sunita And 5 Ors
Respondent :- Sri Ram General Insurance Company Limited And 2 Ors
Counsel for Appellant :- Santosh Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- Pankaj Bharti
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
Hon'ble Subhash Chand,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and order impugned.
Though, the four years have elapsed, but Sri Ram General Insurance Company Limited has not appointed any counsel on his behalf yet the notices has already been served upon it way back in the year 2018.
Be that as it may, we request to Sri Vijay Prakash Mishra, Advocate, who is in the panel, to assist the Court.
Before going to the factual data, we have considered that without passing the order on the application dated 25.10.2017 annexed as Annexure No. 5 to the appeal, the tribunal has taken initiative and dismissed the claim petition of the appellants. The destitute claimant-widow had shifted herself at Delhi to his brother. In this regard an application has been filed before the tribunal under Order 23 Rule 1 of C.P.C. and what order the learned judge has passed, is total incomprehensible.
It appears from the record that instead of passing the order on the application, the learned judge dismissed the claim petition of the appellants. In our opinion, the learned judge has overlooked the First Information Report lodged by the brother of the deceased. There is no rebuttal filed by the owner, driver of the truck as well as Sri Ram Insurance Company that the said truck was not involved in the accident, as it appears from the narration of paragraph no.3. He has without permitting the appellants to lead any evidence dismissed the same, as the learned judge shown some practicality in the matter and permitted the destitute widow and children to lead evidence, which is difference. The tribunal has committed a grave error in deciding the issue no.1, therefore, we are setting aside the judgment of the tribunal.
The matter is remanded back to the tribunal to permit the appellants again to choose if the appellants want that the matter may be transferred to Delhi then they may be permitted to withdraw the same under Order 23 Rule 1 of C.P.C. and copies will return to her, as the four years have already been elapsed and the matter had been dismissed surreptitiously by the learned judge.
With these observations, the appeal stands disposed of.
We direct that the record, if here, be sent back immediately to the tribunal.
We are thankful to the learned counsel for the parties for getting the matter disposed of.
Order Date :- 5.8.2021
AK Pandey
