Interim Order 4

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: MACT No.66/25
Union of India Vs. Sharvan Kumar
02.04.2026
Present : Mr. Arvind Mishra, Ld. Counsel for petitioner alongwith
ASI Surender.
Mr. Rahul Nigam, Ld. Counsel for respondents no. 1 and
2 alongwith respondents no. 1 and 2.
Ms. Sushma Kumar, Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3.
Vakalatnama is filed by Ld. Counsel for respondents no 1 and 2.
An application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is filed by
Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3. Copy is supplied.
Application has been filed on the ground that the petition for
compensation has been filed beyond the prescribed period of
limitation of six months and therefore, is liable to be dismissed.
In the case of ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.
Ayiti Navaneetha, SLP(Civil) No. 8412/2023, by order dated
04.11.2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that during pendency of
said case, no Tribunal shall dismiss the claim petitions on the ground
that these are barred by limitation.
In view of said direction of Hon’ble Supreme Court, the claim
petition cannot be dismissed/rejected on the ground that it is barred by
limitation and therefore, the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is
hereby dismissed.
An application for waiver of cost imposed on 20.01.2026 is
filed by Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3. Copy is supplied.
-- 1 of 3 --
-2-
It is stated in the application that summons of the case were
served upon the Designated Officer of the respondent no. 3 for
20.01.2026 and therefore, on the said date, Ld. Counsel for the
respondent no. 3 entered appearance.
It is stated that due to bad internet connectivity, Ld. Counsel for
respondent no. 3 could not make his submissions properly, due to
which the Court imposed a cost of Rs.3,000/-.
It is stated that there is no lapse on part of respondent no. 3
since it put in appearance on the first hearing after service.
On the above grounds, it is prayed that cost of Rs.3,000/-
imposed upon respondent no. 3 be waived.
Application has been opposed.
Arguments are heard and record is perused.
Respondent no. 3 has concealed that notice was first served
upon the respondent no. 3 on 06.10.2025 for 18.11.2025. On
18.11.2025, no one appeared on behalf of respondent no. 3. Even reply
was not filed. Infact, till date, no reply has been filed by respondent
no. 3.
In case, the Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3 did not have
adequate internet connectivity, he should not have appeared through
video conferencing on the last date of hearing i.e. 20.01.2026.
-- 2 of 3 --
-3-
The case was adjourned due to the respondent no. 3 on the last
date of hearing. The Tribunal is of the view that whenever the case is
adjourned due to a party, that party should compensate the opposite
party for the adjournment irrespective of how bonafide the reasons are
for seeking adjournment.
Cost of Rs.3,000/- imposed on the last date of hearing is
compensatory and not punitive.
The application for waiver of cost is devoid of merit and is
dismissed with further cost of Rs.3,000/- to be paid by respondent
no. 3 to the petitioner.
Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 3 requests for an adjournment.
A lenient view is taken and request for adjournment is allowed.
To come up for payment of cost of Rs.6,000/- and for filing of
reply on 06.08.2026.
(Shirish Aggarwal)
Judge/ PO, MACT-01
New Delhi, 02.04.2026
-- 3 of 3 --