Dismissed

Smt. Sunita v. Motor Accident Claims

Allahabad HC10 Nov 2021WRIC/29446/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge writ petition sought a direction to expeditiously decide a pending motor accident claim before the MACT. Relying on a Division Bench ruling that courts should not generally issue expedited hearing directions for ordinary suits, the petitioner's prayer was declined and the petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

No direction was issued to expedite the disposal of the Claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

Smt. Sunita Vs Motor Accident Claims — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 6

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 29446 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Smt. Sunita Respondent :- Motor Accident Claims Counsel for Petitioner :- Vidya Kant Shukla

¶4

Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

¶5

This writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:-

¶6

"(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kanpur Nagar to decide the M.A.C.P. No. 256 of 2017 (Smt. Sunita and others vs. Amit Kumar and another)"

¶7

From the perusal of the record, it transpires that the prayer has been made for early disposal of M.A.C.P. No. 256 of 2017 pending before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kanpur Nagar.

¶8

The Division Bench of this Court in case of Ali Shad Usmani vs. Ali Isteba, 2015 (2) ADJ 250 (DB) has held that no direction can be issued to the sub-ordinate courts for deciding the suit within stipulated period. Relevant portion of the judgment is extracted hereasunder:-

¶9

"We are not inclined to issue a direction for the expeditious hearing of a Civil Suit which is pending before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), District-Azamgarh. It would be most inappropriate to Court to entertain a writ petition under Article 226 and/or under Article 227 of the Constitution simply for the purpose of expediting the hearing of a suit. Such orders, if granted, place a class of litigants, who move the court in a separate and preferential category whereas other cases which may be of similar or greater antiquity and urgency are left to be decided in the normal channel. Hence, any such direction may be issued with the greatest care and circumspection by the High Court otherwise the Civil Courts will be overburdened only with requests for expeditious disposal of suits, which have been expedited by the High Court. Most of the litigants cannot afford the expense of moving the High court and would not, therefore, be in a position to have the benefit of such an order.

¶10

Ultimately, it must be left to the judicious exercise of discretion of the concerned Court to determine whether a ground for urgency has been made out. We emphasize that there may be other cases such as involving senior citizens, those who are differently abled or people suffering from a particular disablilty socio-economic or otherwise which may prime cause of urgent disposal. It is for the learned Trial Judge in each case to apply his or her mind and decide whether the hearing of the suit to be expedited.

¶11

For these reasons, we are not inclined to entertain the petition. The

¶12

petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost." In view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ali Shad Usmani (supra), this Court declines to grant the relief as prayed for.

¶13

The writ petitions is dismissed.

¶14

Order Date :- 10.11.2021 V.S.Singh

Smt. Sunita v. Motor Accident Claims

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sunita v. Motor Accident Claims

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shyam Bahadur Vs State of U.P. and Others

Naresh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru Home Secy. and 2 Others

Vinod Kumar Vs the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

Sanjay Singh Vs State of U P and Another

Ram Bahadur Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Dayanand Pandey Vs State of U P and 2 Others