Reliance General Ins Co Ltd vs Jayantibhai Jivabhai Patel

A.G.Uraizee, J

Heard learned advocate for the applicant.

The applicant insurance company has challenged the order dated 19.12.2019 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Ahmedabad (Rural) under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

Relevant provisions of sub-rule (1) and (2) of Rule 4 of Order III of the Code reads as under.

"4. Appointment of Pleader.- (1) No pleader shall act for any person in any Court, unless he has been appointed for the purpose by such person by a document in writing signed by such person or by his recognized agent or by some other person duly authorized by or under a power-of- attorney to make such appointment.

(2) Every such appointment shall be [filed in Court and shall, for the purposes of sub-rule (1), be] deemed to be in force until determined with the leave of the Court by a writing signed by the client or the pleader, as the case may be, and filed in Court, or until the client or the pleader dies, or until all proceedings in the suit are ended so far as regards the client.

[Explanation.- For the purposes of this sub-rule, the following shall be deemed to be proceedings in the suit,-

xxx xxx xxx

(c) an appeal from any decree or order in the suit, and".

Rule 5 of Order III of the Code reads as under.

"5. Service of process on pleader.- [Any process served on the pleader who has been duly appointed to act in Court for any party] or left at the office or ordinary residence of such pleader, and whether th same is for the personal appearance of the party or not, shall be presumed to be duly communicated and made known to the party whom the pleader represents, and, unless the Court otherwise directs, shall be as effectual for all purposes as if the same had been given to or served on the party in person."

Conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions makes it abundantly clear that appointment of the pleader is deemed to be in force until it is determined or until the client or the pleader dies or proceedings of the suit are ended qua client. It is also clear from the explanation that appeal from any decree or order in the suit are deemed to be proceedings of the suit.

The cause title of the application Exh.3 reveals that claimants are represented by Mr.P.K.Rathod and Mr.M.G.Parmar, learned advocates who are practising in the Court at Ahmedabad (Rural) in the claim petition in the Tribunal. The claim petition is still pending.

Hence, in view of the aforesaid provisions of the Code, since the original claimants are not found at the address mentioned in the cause title of the appeal which is taken from the cause title of the impugned order, it would be apposite to serve the claimants through learned advocates who represent them in the proceedings of the claim petition.

In view of the above, let there shall be notice to respondent Nos.1 and 2 only returnable on 2.12.2021 to be served on learned advocates Mr.P.K.Rathod and Mr.M.G.Parmar who are practising in the Court at Ahmedabad (Rural).