Allowed

Satay Pal and 2 Others v. Yashin Malik and 2 Others

Allahabad HC23 Mar 2023WRIC/7520/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging the deletion of siblings as claimants in a motor accident compensation case. The single judge quashed the deletion and remanded the matter for a fresh order in light of Supreme Court precedents on legal representatives.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 10.02.2023 quashed and matter remanded to the MACT, Bulandshahar for a fresh order.

Satay Pal and 2 Others Vs Yashin Malik and 2 Others — Motor Accident Claims | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 6

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7520 of 2023

¶3

Petitioner :- Satay Pal And 2 Others Respondent :- Yashin Malik And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bibhuti Narayan Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶5

Order on I.A. No.2 of 2023:

¶6

The application seeks impleadment.

¶7

The application is allowed.

¶8

The applicants/petitioners are directed to implead Smt. Rachana, Smt. Meena Devi and Shri Devi Sahai as respondent nos.4, 5 & 6.

¶9

The necessary incorporation be carried out during the course of the day.

¶10

Order on main petition:

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶12

Present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 10.02.2023 whereby on an application filed by respondent nos.4, 5 & 6, the name of the petitioners have been deleted from the claim petition.

¶13

The facts, in brief, are that the petitioners alongwith Smt. Rachana, Smt. Meena Devi and Shri Devi Sahai had filed a petition claiming compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act. Respondent No.4 is the wife of the deceased, respondent no.5 is the mother of the deceased and respondent no.6 is the father of the deceased, whereas the petitioners are brothers and sisters of the deceased and claim to be dependent on the deceased as well as the legal representatives.

¶14

An application was moved by respondent no.4 seeking to delete the name of the petitioners from the list of the claimants who had filed the petition. The said application was allowed holding that the petitioners being brothers and sisters would not fall within the definition of legal representatives. The petitioner relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmedabad v. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai & Anr.; 1987 SCR (3) 404 and N. Jayasree & Ors. v. Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Company Ltd.; Civil Appeal No.6451 of 2021 decided on

¶15

25.10.2021.

¶16

Considering the order impugned which has been passed deleting the names only on the plain reading of the provisions of the Act without there being any consideration to the law as laid and referred above, the impugned order dated 10.02.2023 is quashed.

¶17

The matter is remanded to MACT, Bulandshahar to pass a fresh order after hearing the parties including respondent nos.4, 5 & 6 and after taking into account the judgments as referred above.

¶18

The writ petition is disposed off in above terms.

¶19

Order Date :- 23.3.2023 nishant

¶20

Digitally signed by :- NISHANT MOHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Satay Pal and 2 Others v. Yashin Malik and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satay Pal and 2 Others v. Yashin Malik and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ranjeet Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Karan Rajput Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

M/S Mirc Electronics Ltd. Vs Competent Authority Under Payment of Gratuity and 2 Others

M/S Chrome Design and Media Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

M/S Maa Mahamaya Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Devlal Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others