9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (3) TMI 959X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... United India Insurance Co. Ltd. challenging the award passed by the Second M.A.C.T., Cuttack in Misc. Case No. 598 of 1988 awarding a sum at Rs. 80,000/- as compensation to claimant-respondents 1, 2 and 3, (petitioners). This Court by a well-discussed judgment dated March 6, 1997 came to the conclusion that at the relevant time when the accident took place, the vehicle was not insured and that the insurance which was only for two months, had expired with effect from January 6.1988. Admittedly, the accident took place on May 5, 1988. On the basis of such conclusion, this Court directed, the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal to be paid by the owner and not by the Insurance Company. 3. The claimant-petitioners in this application sp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent No. 4 entered appearance through Shri G. P. Mohanty and Shri H. P. Mohanty, Advocates on 25.3.1996, However, neither respondent No. 1 nor respondent Nos. 2 and 3, the minors entered appearance. By order dated 27.4.93, this Court directed the appellant to deposit guardian's cost for appointment of court-guardian oh behalf of minor respondents 2 and 3. After depositing necessary cost, Miss Sanju Panda, learned Advocate was appointed as court-guardian on behalf of respondents 2 and 3. Misc. Appeal was listed for hearing on 19.8.96 and the same was heard in part and was adjourned for further hearing. On 5.11.96, the matter was once again adjourned on the request of the appellant. On 19.11.96, the matter was heard further in part, and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned counsel for the parties appearing before it, the Hon'ble Single Judge disposed of the case by a well-discussed judgment. Thus, the order/judgment dated March 6,1997 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge can, under no circumstance, be nomenclatured as an ex parte order so as to attract the provisions of Order 41, Rule 21 CPC. 7. The second contention of Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioners, is that petitioner No. 1 being a destitute widow, entrusted the matter to her lower court Advocate who assured her to take appropriate steps in the Misc. Appeal, but failed to do so and thus, there was sufficient cause for non-appearance of respondents 1 to 3 when the appeal was called for hearing. Admittedly, respondent-petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt to deposit the guardian-cost. Miss Sanju Panda, an advocate, having fairly good practice, was appointed as an advocate on behalf of minor respondents 2 and 3. The judgment reveals that Miss Panda strenuously argued the case before the Hon'ble-Single Judge. 8. The defence of all the three respondent-petitioners is one and same. They prosecuted the lis being represented by a single advocate in court below. Thus, absolutely no prejudice whatsoever is caused to the petitioners. In the given circumstances, I feel that non-appearance of respondent No, 1 and non-engagement of an advocate by her will not be construed that the respondents were prevented by "sufficient cause" from appearing when the appeal was called for hearing, so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yi Dasi MANU/WB/0386/1925 : AIR 1926 Cal 1053 observed as follows : "Where a minor defendant represented by guardian ad litem attains majority during proceedings, a duty lies on him when he attains majority to discharge his guardian ad litem and appear himself, even though the plaintiff knows that the minor attained majority." Similarly, a Division Bench of Madras High Court in the case of Lanka. Sanyasi v. Lanka Yeran Naidu AIR 1928 Mad. 294, observed as follows : "..... Apparently, therefore, we must take it as found by the learned Judges in that case, that the minor defendant who comes of age may if he thinks fit come on the record and conduct the defence himself. If, however, he does not do so and allows the case to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us, it will be deemed that they elected to abide by the judgment and cannot avoid the same after disposal of the case. Even otherwise, in the Misc. Appeal, the Hon'ble Single Judge has upheld the amount of compensation payable to the petitioners (claimants). The only modification to the award made by the Hon'ble Single Judge is that, the compensation has to be paid by the owner and not by the Insurance Company. For deciding the said issue, the only proper and necessary party was the owner of the vehicle, respondent No. 4. The owner has entered appearance before this Court through Shri G. P. Mohanty, a fairly senior advocate, and as the judgment reveals, he was heard in extenso. Thus, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioners ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
