Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Mithurani Mahato vs Cholamandalam Ms. General ... on 24 August, 2023
24.08.2023 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Ct. no.654 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
D/L 56
ab ,,
FMAT 309 of 2018
With
CAN 1 of 2018 (Old No. CAN 3056 of 2018)
With
CAN 2 of 2018 (Old No. CAN 3057 of 2018)
With
CAN 3 of 2022
,
Mithurani Mahato
Vs.
Cholamandalam Ms. General Insurance Co. Ltd & Anr.
,,
Mr. Soujanya Bandyopadhyay
... for the appellant-claimant
Mr. Debanjan Mukherjee,
Mr. S. Bose,
... for the respondent no. 1-insurance company.
Re: CAN 1 of 2018(Old No. CAN 3056 of 2018) (Section 5)
This is an application for condonation of delay
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in preferring the
present appeal.
Mr. Soujanya Bandyopadhyay, learned advocate for
the appellant-claimant submits that due to economical
hardship, the appeal could not be preferred within the
statutory period of limitation thereby resulting in delay of
233 days. He seeks for condonation of such delay.
Mr. Debanjan Mukherjee, learned advocate for the
respondent no. 1-insurance company opposes such
prayer.
It is contended in the application that due to poor
financial condition of the claimant, the appeal could not
be filed within the statutory period of limitation. The
cause shown is sufficient to condone such delay.
Accordingly, delay of 233 days in preferring the appeal
stands condoned.
The application for condonation of delay being CAN
1 of 2018(Old No. CAN 3056 of 2018) stands disposed of.
Accordingly, the appeal is formally admitted and
registered
Re : FMAT 309 of 3018
This appeal is preferred against the judgment and
award dated 30th May, 2017 passed by the learned Judge,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 2nd Bench, City Civil
Court, Calcutta in M.A.C. Case No. 204 of 2012 under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Mr. Soujanya Bandyopadhyay, learned advocate for
the appellant-claimant submits that all the relevant
papers are with him and as such, calling for of lower
court records be dispensed with at present and he
undertakes to prepare informal paper books.
Mr. Debanjan Mukherjee, learned advocate for the
respondent no. 1 -insurance company concurs with such
submissions.
In view of submissions advanced on behalf of the
appellant-claimant, calling for of lower court records is
dispensed with for the time being.
Learned advocate for the appellant-claimant is
directed to prepare and file requisite number of informal
paper books incorporating all relevant papers and
documents including the pleadings and evidence, both
oral and documentary, in printed or typewritten or
cyclostyled form, as the case may be, out of court, within
four weeks from date.
Mr. Soujanya Bandyopadhyay learned advocate for
the appellant-claimant further submits that an
application being CAN 3 of 2022 has been filed for
dispensing with service of notice of appeal upon the
respondent No. 2, owner of the offending vehicle, since he
did not contest the claim application. It is found from the
impugned judgment that the respondent No. 2-owner of
the offending vehicle did not contest the claim
application. In the aforesaid backdrop, service of notice of
appeal upon the respondent No. 2-owner of the offending
vehicle stands dispensed with.
The application being CAN 3 of 2022 accordingly
stands disposed of.
Since the respondent No. 1-insurance company has
already entered appearance, service of notice of appeal
upon the said respondent also stands dispensed with.
Let the matter appear under the heading "Hearing"
after four weeks.
< (Bivas Pattanayak, J.)
