Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 7861 Cal
Judgement Date : 28 November, 2022
28.11.2022
sl.2
Ct No. 654
Sk
F.M.A.T. 802 of 2016
IA No: CAN 1 of 2017(Old No. CAN 7004 of 2017)
Karim Mondal & Anr.
vs
The National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.
Ms. Juin Das,
...for the appellants.
Re: CAN 1 of 2017 (Old no. CAN 7004 of 2017)
This is an application for condonation of
delay.
Ms. Juin Das, learned advocate for
appellants-claimants submit that there is a delay of
659 days in preferring the appeal on the ground of
financial stringency and for taking legal consultation
and she seeks for condonation of delay.
As per the report of Stamp Reporter dated
2.8.2016 there is delay of 660 days. The cause
shown is sufficient to condone the delay.
Accordingly, delay of 660 days in preferring the
appeal is condoned.
The application being CAN 1 of 2017(Old
no. CAN 7004 of 2017) stands allowed and
disposed of.
This appeal is directed against the judgment
and award dated 8th July 2014 passed by Judge,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 5th Court,
2
Murshidabad in MAC Case no.494 of 2012 under
Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
The appeal is formally admitted and
registered.
Learned advocate for the appellants-
claimants submits that all the relevant papers and
documents are with her and as such calling for of
lower court records be dispensed with for the time
being. In view of such submissions calling for of
lower court records is dispensed with at present.
Learned advocate for the appellants-
claimants undertakes to prepare informal paper
books. Accordingly, learned advocate for appellants-
claimants is directed to prepare and file requisite
numbers of informal paper books incorporating all
relevant papers and documents, pleadings, both oral
and documentary evidence in printed, cyclostyled or
typewritten form within a period of two weeks from
date. One set of such informal paper book be filed in
court and another set be served upon learned
advocate for respondent no.1-insurance company.
Learned advocate for appellants-claimants
submits for dispensing with service of notice of
appeal upon respondent no.2-owner of the offending
vehicle as he did not contest the claim application
before the learned tribunal. It appears from the
impugned judgment that respondent no.2-owner of
the offending vehicle did not contest the claim
application before the learned tribunal and the case
was disposed of exparte against him. In the
aforesaid backdrop service of notice of appeal upon
respondent no.2-owner of the offending vehicle is
dispensed with.
Let the matter appear on 15.12.2022.
(Bivas Pattanayak J.)
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!