Baby Devi & Anr vs Bhavesh Singh & Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 2420 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Baby Devi & Anr vs Bhavesh Singh & Ors on 5 February, 2025

Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
              M.A. No. 400 of 2016
Baby Devi & Anr.                                      ....   ....   Appellants
                                      Versus
Bhavesh Singh & Ors.                                  ...      ....     Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Appellants                    : Mr. Shekhar Prasad Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondents                   : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, Advocate
                       ------

Order No. 12 / Dated : 05.02.2025.

The claimants have preferred this appeal for enhancement of compensation amount awarded against the insurance company with a right of recovery to the insurance company against the owner(s), who were impleaded as defendant no. 1 and 2, (who are the joint owner of the offending truck) and did not appear during trial and ex-parte proceeding was drawn on 18.06.2013.

It is submitted by learned counsel on behalf of the claimants that one of the co-owners (respondent no. 2) has died during the pendency of the instant appeal and a prayer has been made for exemption from substitution of respondent no. 2, in view of the fact that he had not appeared and contested the suit in the Trial Court.

Learned counsel on behalf of the insurance company, Mr. Ashutosh Anand submits that since the right of recovery has been given to the insurance company, therefore, it will be necessary for the ends of justice to get respondent no.2 be substituted in the instant appeal.

It is not disputed that none of the owners had appeared during trial before the learned Tribunal and ex-parte proceeding was drawn. The object of Motor Vehicles Act to provide compensation is without any inordinate delay to the heirs and descendants of the deceased and it will be defeated, if further adjournment is granted for substitution of the legal heirs of one of the co-owners.

It appears that one of the co-owners is already on record and in view of specific provision under Order 22 Rule 4(IV) CPC, this Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case for exemption of substitution of respondent no. 2.

Under the circumstance, the requirement of substitution of respondent no. 2 (Bimal Kishore) is dispensed with.

It goes without saying that respondent no. 2 had not contested the claim case, therefore the judgment pronounced in absence of respondent no. 2 shall have the same force and effect, as if it had been pronounced before the death took place.

Let the LCR be called for.

Let the case be listed after receipt of LCR.

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Pawan/Sandep-