AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J
I.A. No.3918 of 2025 has been filed for condonation of delay of 544 days in preferring the instant appeal.
The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is owner of the vehicle in question and the insurance company has already satisfied the award in favour of the claimant(s) and pursuant to that, the execution case has been filed by the insurance company for recovery of the said amount from the owner of the vehicle in question. He submits that the delay has occurred as because the mother of the appellant was admitted in the hospital and subsequently, she has left for her heavenly abode. He submits that death certificate is also annexed with the said I.A. On this ground, he submits that the delay occurred in preferring the instant appeal may kindly be condoned.
Mr. Manish Kumar, the learned counsel for the respondent insurance company /respondent no.1 opposed the prayer and submits that sufficient ground for condonation of the delay has not been made out.
The Court finds that the death certificate of the mother of the appellant is annexed with the instant I.A and contention has been made that such delay in preferring the instant appeal has occurred due to illness of the mother of the appellant. The Court finds that sufficient ground is made out for condonation of such delay and as such, the said delay occurred in preferring the instant appeal is hereby condoned and the instant I.A. filed for condonation of delay stands allowed and disposed of.
Mr. Manish Kumar, the learned counsel for the respondent no.1/ Insurance company submits that this matter may kindly be taken in the next week.
The dispute in this appeal is for involvement of the vehicle which is said to be an Ambulance.
It has been contended that for the Ambulance, road permit is not required under section 66 (3)(C) of the Motor Vehicle Act, in view of that, call for the Trial Court Records.
I.A. No.3917 of 2025 has been filed for stay of the Execution Case No.58 of 2023 which has been preferred by the respondent Insurance company for recovery of the amount from the appellant who is said to be the owner of the said Ambulance.
Mr. Manish Kumar, the learned counsel for the respondent Insurance company submits that the stay may not be granted as the main appeal is still pending.
The learned counsel for the appellant submits that during pendency of the present appeal, the Execution Case No.58 of 2023 has been disposed of by the learned Executing Court and now the notice is issued by the Certificate Officer for recovery of the amount.
Considering that the Trial Court Record has been called for and as the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that during pendency of the present appeal, the Execution Case No.58 of 2023 has been disposed of by the learned Executing Court and now the notice is issued by the Certificate Officer for recovery of the amount and as the execution case is disposed of as disclosed in the supplementary affidavit, and as such, the I.A. No.3917 of 2025 which was filed for stay of the Execution Case No.58 of 2023 is disposed of.
In the supplementary affidavit, the notice received by the appellant issued by the learned Certificate Officer is not annexed.
The appellant is having his right of filing the objection before the learned Certificate Officer and as such, liberty is kept open to the appellant to file his objection before the Certificate Officer.