SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 17539

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SMT. RAM BAI – Appellant
Versus
RAMSABAD SINGH – Respondent
WP227/508/2026



##PAGE1##

1

2026:CGHC:20030

Digitally signed

by SAGRIKA

SAGRIKA AGRAWAL

AGRAWAL Date:

2026.05.04 NAFR

18:17:53 +0530

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WP227 No. 508 of 2026

1 - Smt. Ram Bai Wd/o Late Thakurdayal Kurre, Aged About 59 Years

R/o Village Satpata, Police Station Bishrampur, Tahsil And District

Surajpur, Chhattisgarh

2 - Ku. Neera Kurre D/o Late Thakurdayal Kurrey Aged About 34 Years

R/o Village Satpata, Police Station Bishrampur, Tahsil And District

Surajpur Chhattisgarh.

... Petitioner(s)

versus

1 - Ramsabad Singh S/o Nandkishore Singh, Aged About 49 Years R/o

Village Shivnandanpur, Police Station Bishrampur, District Surajpur,

Chhattisgarh. .. ( Driver Of Offending Vehicle Truck Bearing Registration

No. C.G. – 15-Cx-5691)

2 - Rakesh Rai S/o Akhileshwar Ram Rai, Aged About 25 Years R/o

Minus Colony Bishrampur, Ward No. 06, Police Station Bishrampur,

District - Surajpur, Chhattisgarh --- ( Owner Of Offending Vehicle Truck

Bearing Registration No. C.G. 15-Cx-5691)

3 - Branch Manager H.D.F.C, Branch Surajpur, District Surajpur,

Chhattisgarh --- (Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Truck Bearing

Registration No. C.G.-15-Cx-5691)

... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aditya Mishra, Advocate

##PAGE2##

2

S.B. Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

Order on Board

29/04/2026

1 Heard.

2 The present writ petitioner under article 227 of the Constitution of

India, filed by the petitioner against the order dated 07.10.2024 whereby

the application filed by the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 2 of CPC has

been rejected.

3 Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the

petitioners had earlier prosecuting a claim case before the learned 2nd

Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surajpur (hereinafter referred as

“Claims Tribunal”) bearing Claim Case No. 54/2018 for compensation

on account of death of Dinesh Kurre who is the son of the petitioner No.

1 and brother of the petitioner No. 2. In the said claim case, award was

passed on 30.07.2018 and an amount of Rs.5,16,000/- was awarded in

favour of the petitioners. Being dissatisfied by the quantum of the

compensation, the petitioners had filed an appeal bearing MAC No.

1685/2018 before this Court. The said appeal was disposed of vide

order dated 07.03.2024 and remitted the matter back to the learned

Claims Tribunal permitting the Respondent No. 3/ Insurance Company

to file their written statement and the appellants to amend their

pleadings and to led their evidences. Thereafter, the learned Claims

Tribunal has dismissed the claim case for non-compliance of the orders

with respect to issuance of notices to the non-applicants and non

payment of process fee for them vide order dated 23.09.2024. When

##PAGE3##

3

the petitioners came to know about dismissal of their claim case, they

filed their application for restoration of the same under Order 9 Rule 2 of

CPC, however, the said application has also been dismissed. Which is

under challenge in the present writ petition.

4 He would further submit that the present is a claim case which

may not be dismissed on technical ground as the petitioners suffered

loss of the son of petitioner No. 1 and brother of petitioner No. 2. The

Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial law and the petitioners are entitled for

compensations and since from the date of accident i.e. 31.01.2018 till

date they have not received any amount of compensation and their

claim application is dismissed on the technical ground. The petitioners

being the less literate persons, there was lack of communication

between them and their counsel before the learned Claims Tribunal,

their claim case was dismissed, the petitioners want to prosecute their

claim case vigilantly and therefore, the same may be restored in its

original number by allowing their application under Order 9 Rule 2 of

CPC.

5 I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the

material annexed with the petition.

6 The facts of the case are not in dispute that in the Claim Case No.

54/2018, an award was passed in favour of the petitioners vide award

dated 30.07.2018.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top