Bijuli Mejhan & Ors vs The Oriental Insurance Company ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2017 Cal

341.    27.03.2023
       Court No.654
       Tanmoy Ghosh


                                           FMA 574 of 2021

                                      Bijuli Mejhan & Ors.
                                             -Versus-
                        The Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Anr.

                                                With
                                        IA No: CAN/1/2021



                             Mr. Amit Ranjan Roy, Adv.
                                               ...for the appellants/claimants.


                             Mr. Amit Ranjan Roy, learned Advocate for the

                      appellants/claimants, submits that the matter is ready

                      for hearing.

                             None appears on behalf of the respondent

no.1/Insurance Company.

In Re: FMA 574 of 2021

This appeal is preferred against the judgment

and award dated January 20, 2020, passed by the

Additional District Judge-cum-Judge, Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal, Fast Track, 2nd Court, Asansol,

Paschim Bardhaman, in MAC Case No. 25 of 2016,

under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

As per report of the Stamp Reporter dated March

18, 2021, the appeal is preferred within time in terms

of order of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Suo motu

Writ (Civil) no. 3 of 2020.

Accordingly, the appeal is formally admitted and

registered.

The lower court records have already been

received and upon examination found to be complete

and in order.

Mr. Amit Ranjan Roy, learned Advocate for the

appellants/claimants submits that all the relevant

papers are with him and he undertakes to prepare the

informal paper books. Accordingly, learned Advocate for

the appellants/claimants is directed to prepare and file

three sets of informal paper books incorporating all

relevant papers and documents in printed, cyclostyled

or typewritten form within a period of three weeks from

date.

Mr. Roy, learned Advocate for the

appellants/claimants, submits 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 appears from the impugned

judgment that the owner of the offending vehicle did

not contest the claim application and it was disposed of

ex parte against him. In the aforesaid backdrop, service

of notice of appeal upon the said respondent stands

dispensed with.

Since, the respondent no.1/Insurance Company

has already appeared, service of notice upon the said

respondent stands dispensed with.

Let the matter appear after three weeks under

the heading 'For Hearing'.

(Bivas Pattanayak, J.)