1 2025:CGHC:26584 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 535 of 2025  Hemant Kumar @ Deepak S/o. Kartik Ram Sahu Aged About 32 Years R/o. Nayapara Sirgitti Santoshi Chowk, Thana - Sirgitti, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Mohan Lal Puri S/o. Late Shri Moti Ram Aged About 46 Years R/o. Village - Barwasan, P.S. Gaurela, District - Gaurela-Pendra- Marwahi (C.G.) 2. Urmila Puri S/o. Mohan Lal Aged About 44 Years R/o. Village - Barwasan, P.S. Gaurela, District - Gaurela-Pendra-Marwahi (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Syed Ishhadil Ali, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 23/06/2025 1) Petitioner/ owner of the offending vehicle has preferred this petition challenging the order dated 14.11.2024 passed by the learned Tenth Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District– Bilaspur whereby right of the petitioner to file reply to claim application moved under Section 166 of MV Act has been closed. Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.06.23 14:13:05 +0530 2 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that opportunity was granted to the petitioner to file reply on 08.07.2024 ; 08.08.2024 ; 27.09.2024 and 06.11.2024 and when he failed to submit reply, his right was closed vide order dated 14.11.2024. He further submits that the learned Tribunal ought to have afforded one opportunity to file reply. He contends that the offending vehicle was not insured, therefore, non-filing of reply would cause prejudice to petitioner’s right. 3) Heard. 4) It appears that petitioner was afforded sufficient opportunity to file reply by the Tribunal but he failed, therefore, his right was closed vide order dated 14.11.2024. 5) Taking into consideration the submission made by Mr. Ali and the reasons assigned in the writ petition, the order dated 14.11.2024 is hereby set-aside, subject to payment of cost of Rs. 2,000/- payable to the claimants. Petitioner/ owner of the offending vehicle is directed to file reply and pay the cost of Rs. 2,000/- to the claimants on the next date of hearing. 6) It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be granted to the petitioner to file reply to the claim application. 7) With the aforesaid direction(s), this petition stands disposed of. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Ajinkya