Back
2020 Supreme(Telangana) 864
IN THE HIGH COURT OF STATE OF TELANGANA
G. SRI DEVI, J.
Koppula Rajasekhar - Appellant
Versus
Aruna Sharma and Ors. - Respondents
CRP No. 648 of 2020
Decided On : 27-11-2020
For the Appellant : C.M. Prakash.
For the Respondents: Harinath Reddy Soma.
Point of law: As the petitioner suffered amputation and other injuries in the accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime lorry, which was insured with the 2nd respondent, this Court is of the view that the petitioner can be given one more opportunity to represent case and the petitioner cannot be suffered for the mistake committed by his Counsel in representing the case
Headnote:
Civil Procedure Code,1908 - Section 115 - Limitation Act - Section 5 - Motor Vehicles Act, 1983 - Section 166 - Seeking compensation - Injuries sustained by him in a road accident - Seeking to condone delay of 369 days in filing application for setting aside order passed - Petitioner herein filed MVOP No. under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1983 and Rule 475 of A.P. MV Rules, 1989, respondents before the Special Sessions Judge for trial of cases under SCs. & STs. (PoA) Act, 1989-cum-VII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, seeking compensation injuries sustained by him in a road accident that occurred at about 9.30 p.m., due to rash and negligent driving of the crime lorry - Trial Court, vide docket order - Petitioner filed to set aside dismissal order passed stating that he went to his native place to attend funeral of his relative and same was informed to his Counsel –
Finding of the court : Petitioner met with an accident Due to said accident, he lost his left leg and also his livelihood - Impugned order discloses that though sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner in OP, he could not represent his case and therefore, the OP was dismissed for default and application for setting aside the default order was also dismissed for default as the petitioner failed to pay the process. Hence, the petitioner filed present application alongwith an application for setting aside the default order passed - Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, is a beneficial legislation and the benefit should be given to injured - Petitioner is the injured for whose benefit the said enactment was brought in by Parliament - Petitioner ought to have given one more opportunity to proceed with his case - Courts below shall not deny the compensation on technicalities - Petitioner suffered amputation and other injuries in the accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime lorry, which was insured with the 2nd respondent, Court is of view that petitioner can be given one more opportunity to represent case and the petitioner cannot be suffered for the mistake committed by his Counsel in representing the case –
Result :Petition is allowed
ORDER :
G. Sri Devi, J.
1. The present civil revision petition is filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code, aggrieved by the order, dated 1.10.2019 passed in IA No. 750 of 2018 in IA No. 315 of 2017 in MVOP No. 833 of 2013 passed by the Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs. & STs. (PoA) Act, 1989-cum-VII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, wherein the I.A. filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, was dismissed.
2. The facts in issue are as under:
The petitioner herein filed MVOP No. 833 of 2013 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1983 and Rule 475 of A.P. MV Rules, 1989, against the respondents before the Special Sessions Judge for trial of cases under SCs. & STs. (PoA) Act, 1989-cum-VII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, seeking compensation of Rs. 30,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident that occurred on 16.5.2013 at about 9.30 p.m., due to rash and negligent driving of the crime lorry. The Trial Court, vide docket order dated 15.2.2013 dismissed the MVOP by passing the following order:
"No representation tough pasted as last chance. Petitioner called absent. MVOP is dismissed. No costs."
3. Thereafter, the petitioner filed IA No. 315 of 2017 to set aside the dismissal order dated 15.2.2013 passed in MVOP No. 833 of 2013, stating that he went to his native place to attend funeral of his relative and the same was informed to his Counsel, but his Counsel could not attend the Court in time as he was held up in traffic on that day and as such the Trial Court dismissed IA No. 315 of 2017 for default, vide order dated 2.6.2017, which reads as follows:
"Notice served against R2. Counsel for petitioner called absent. No representation. Process not paid to R1 within stipulated time. Hence, petition is dismissed for default."
Now the petitioner filed the present application i.e., IA No. 750 of 2018 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking to condone the delay of 369 days in filing the application for setting aside the order passed in IA No. 315 of 2017. Vide impugned order dated 1.10.2019, the Court below dismissed IA No. 750 of 2018 by observing that the petitioner failed to explain the sufficient reasons for causing the delay in filing the set aside application and also he could not file the process against respondent No. 1. Challenging the same, the present civil revision petition has been filed.
4. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent. Notice sent to 1st respondent was returned unserved with an endorsement that the person was unavailable. Hence, notice on the 1st respondent is deemed to be served. Perused the record.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Court below ought to have allowed the application for condonation of delay in filing the set aside petition. He would further submit that the Court below ought to have set aside the default order passed in the MVOP No. 833 of 2013 and dispose of the OP on merits as the petitioner-claimant has good grounds to succeed the OP. Learned Counsel would further submit that due to the accident, the left leg of the petitioner-claimant was amputated below the knee and he could not able to attend his previous work and he is suffering for livelihood. The Court below ignored the very object of M.V. Act which is a beneficial legislation and dismissed the OP filed by the petitioner-claimant. Therefore, he prays to allow the CRP and by setting aside the impugned order and consequently, allow the applications filed for setting aside the default orders dated 2.6.2017 passed in IA No. 315 of 2017 and 16.2.2017 passed in MVOP No. 833 of 2013 and restore the OP filed by the petitioner, otherwise the petitioner would be put to irreparable loss.
6. Learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent would submit that the petitioner failed to represent his case before the Court below though sufficient opportunities were gi
