Bombay High Court
Shri Wasudeo S/O Namdeo Rewatkar vs Shri Ganesh S/O Shekhar Dhawad And ... on 25 October, 2016
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
owp.3102.15+
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT NAGPUR
...
WRIT PETITION NO. 3102/2015
&
WRIT PETITION NO. 3143/2015
Writ Petition No: 3102/2015
Shri Wasudeo s/o Namdeo Rewatkar
Aged about 61 years, occu: Agriculturist
R/o Dodaki, Kondhali
Tah.Katol, Dist.Nagpur. ...PETITIONER
v e r s u s
1) Shri Shekhar s/o Gulabrao Bhongade
Aged about 45 years, occu: Labour
R/o Dhurkheda, Tah. Katol, Dist. Nagpur.
2) The Branch Manager
The New India Assurance Co.Ltd.
Vijay Bhavan, Lokmat Chowk
Wardha Road, Nagpur. ..RESPONDENTS
...........................................................................................................................
Mr.A.A. Sambaray, Advocate for petitioner
Advocate absent for Respondent No.1
Mr. Ashish Paunikar, Adv.for Respondent No.2
............................................................................................................................
Writ Petition No: 3143/2015
Shri Wasudeo s/o Namdeo Rewatkar
Aged about 61 years, occu: Agriculturist
R/o Dodaki, Kondhali
Tah.Katol, Dist.Nagpur. ...PETITIONER
v e r s u s
::: Uploaded on - 27/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 28/10/2016 00:46:16 :::
owp.3102.15+
2
1) Shri Ganesh s/o Shekhar Dhawar
Aged about 51 years, occu: Labour
R/o Ridhora Tah. Katol, Dist. Nagpur.
2) The Branch Manager
The New India Assurance Co.Ltd.
Vijay Bhavan, Lokmat Chowk
Wardha Road, Nagpur. ..RESPONDENTS
...........................................................................................................................
Mr.A.A. Sambaray, Advocate for petitioner
Advocate absent for Respondent No.1
Respondent No.2 served
............................................................................................................................
ig CORAM: A.S.CHANDURKAR, J.
DATED : 25th October, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Since a common order has been impugned in both the above-
referred Writ Petitions, the same are being decided by this common judgment.
2. Rule. Heard finally.
3. The petitioner who is the owner of an offending vehicle that
was the subject-matter of proceedings for grant of compensation in
proceedings u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, is aggrieved by the
order passed by the Claims Tribunal, refusing to condone the delay in
applying for setting aside the exparte order.
4. The Claims Tribunal by the common judgment dated 29.12.2012
partly allowed the claim application preferred by the respondent no.1 herein
and while exonerating the Insurance company, saddled the liability to satisfy
the claim on the petitioner herein. However, a direction to pay and recover
owp.3102.15+
was issued to the Insurance Company. The petitioner moved an Application
for setting aside the exparte judgment along with an application for
condonation of delay in doing so. By the impugned order, this application has
been rejected.
5. Shri A.A. Sambaray, the learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that as the petitioner was proceeded exparte in the proceedings
before the Claims Tribunal, he got knowledge about the award only in the
execution proceedings. He referred to the averments made in the application
for condonation of delay and submitted that the same was immediately filed
after service of the notice. He submitted that the reasons assigned by the
Claims Tribunal in refusing to condone the delay cannot be sustained.
6. Mr. Ashish Paunikar, the learned counsel for the respondent no.
2 supported the impugned order. According to him, the Tribunal was justified
in refusing to condone the delay and hence there was no case for interference.
None appears for the respondent no.1. None appeared for the
respondent no.1 in Writ Petition No.3102/2015 yesterday.
7. With the assistance of learned counsel for the parties I have
perused the documents on record. The Claim Petition was decided on
29.12.2012. According to the petitioner, he got the knowledge of the said
award on 19.6.2013 and after receiving the copy on 10.7.2013, the present
proceedings were filed on 12.8.2013. According to him, in the application
for condonation of delay specific reasons indicating his illness had been
owp.3102.15+
assigned and, therefore, the delay ought to have been condoned. In the
impugned order, the Tribunal has proceeded on the basis that the limitation
commenced from 29.12.2012. Considering the aspect of old age as pleaded by
the petitioner and the fact that the proceedings were decided exparte, the
delay deserved to be condoned. Whether the petitioner was actually served
in the claim petition and whether the exparte judgment deserves to be set
aside, is a matter to be considered on merits.
Hence, considering the reasons mentioned in the Application
for condonation of delay, one opportunity for contesting the proceedings on
merits, deserves to be granted. In view of the aforesaid, the order dated
5.2.2015 passed by the Claims Tribunal that is impugned in both the Writ
Petitions is set aside, subject to the petitioner paying costs of Rs. 2500/- each
to the respondent no.1 within a period of four weeks from today. On such
costs being paid, the delay shall stand condoned and the Tribunal shall
proceed to decide the Application for setting aside the exparte order, in
accordance with law.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no order as
to costs.
JUDGE
sahare
