Minor Debapriya Sahoo vs Cholamandalam Ms General ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 7401 Cal

17.11.2023                       IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
 Ct. no.654                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
 D/L 33
    ab                                       ,,




                                        FMAT (MV) 62 of 2022
                                               With
                                          CAN 1 of 2022
                        ,




                                Minor Debapriya Sahoo
                                         Vs.
                   Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.

              ,,




              Mr. Subhankar Mandal
                                                  ... for the appellant-claimant

              Mr. Soumalya Ganguli
                     ... for the respondent no. 1-insurance company

Re: CAN 1 of 2022 (Section 5)

This is an application for condonation of delay in

preferring the present appeal under Section 5 of the

Limitation Act read with Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle

Act, 1988.

As per the report of the Additional Stamp Reporter

dated 24th March, 2022, there is delay of 67 days in

preferring the appeal.

Mr. Subhankar Mandal, learned advocate for the

appellant-claimant submits that due to Covid pandemic,

the appeal could not be preferred within the statutory

period. Further, the period of delay has been covered by

order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 23rd

September, 2021 passed in SMW (C) No. 3 of 2020. He

seeks for condonation of such delay.

Mr. Soumalya Ganguli, learned advocate for the

respondent no. 1-insurance company leaves the matter to

the discretion of the Court.

It is contended in the application the due to Covid

Pandemic, certified copy of the impugned judgment could

not be furnished, which resulted in delay in filing of the

appeal. The cause shown is sufficient to condone the

delay of 67 days in preferring the appeal. Accordingly,

such delay stands condoned.

The application for condonation of delay being CAN

1 of 2022 stands disposed of.

Accordingly, the appeal is formally admitted and

registered.

Re : FMAT (MV) 62 of 2022

The Additional Stamp Reporter in its report dated

24th March, 2022 has indicated that the name of the

Pratima Sahoo in the impugned judgment does not find

place in the cause title of the memorandum of appeal. It

is found from the impugned judgment that the minor-

victim through her mother and natural guardian Pratima

Sahoo filed the claim application. The present appeal is

also preferred by the minor-victim through his mother,

hence such defect may be ignored.

This appeal is preferred against the judgment and

award dated 20th February, 2020 passed by the learned

Additional District Judge-cum-Judge, Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal, 2nd Court, Tamluk, Purba Medinipur in

M.A.C. Case No. 41 of 2014 under Section 166 of the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Mr. Subhankar Mandal, 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 for the time being and he

undertakes to prepare informal paper books.

Mr. Soumalya Ganguli, learned advocate for the

respondent no. 1-insurance company also concedes to

the said 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 three sets 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 a period of

four weeks from date.

Mr. Subhankar Mandal, learned advocate for the

appellant-claimant also 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 is found from the impugned

judgment that the respondent No. 2-owner of the

offending vehicle did not contest the claim application

and the same has been disposed of ex parte against him.

In the aforesaid backdrop, service of notice of appeal

upon the respondent No. 2-owner of the offending vehicle

stands dispensed with.

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 after four weeks under the

heading "Hearing". <

< (Bivas Pattanayak, J.)