Disposed¶22

Manish Kumar and 2 Others v. the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal North Lko. and 10 Others

Allahabad HC25 Jan 2024/80/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 227 petition; interim order of MACT (North) Lucknow in Claim Petition No. 4 of 2012; impleadment application by respondent no. 11 claiming to be wife of deceased Ram Kumar; Tribunal finding she was a dependent though not legally wedded wife; objection that order was passed piecemeal during part-heard final hearing; Court declines interference before final award; statutory appeal against final award preserved; petition disposed of; Neutral Citation 2024:AHC-LKO:7595.

What did the court decide?

The observations and findings recorded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, North, Lucknow in the order dated 08.11.2023 in Claim Petition No. 4 of 2012 can very well be assailed by the petitioners, if aggrieved, against the award passed by the Tribunal. ¶19

Manish Kumar and 2 Others Vs the Motor Accident… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the Tribunal's order dated 08.11.2023, finding private respondent no. 11 to be a dependent of the deceased entitled to part compensation despite not being the legally wedded wife, deserved to be set aside on the ground that it was passed piecemeal after the final hearing had already commenced, instead of being decided along with the other issues. +1 more

¶15

Court's answer

¶19

Ratio / Principle

At the interim stage, where the matter is yet to be decided finally, the Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition; the impugned order dated 08.11.2023 is not set aside.

¶20

Key takeaways

The petitioners remain free to contest the claim petition and, if aggrieved by the final award, have the statutory remedy of filing an appeal; mere filing of this petition and its non-entertainment at this stage will not come in the way of that statutory right.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (Jaspreet Singh, J.) disposed of a Matter Under Article 227 (No. 80 of 2024, decided 25.1.2024) challenging the interim order dated 08.11.2023 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (North), Lucknow in Claim Petition No. 4 of 2012, by which the Tribunal found that although private respondent no. 11 was not the legally wedded wife of the deceased Ram Kumar, she was a dependent entitled to some part of compensation. The order was passed after the final hearing had partly commenced (heard 03.10.2023, adjourned 07.10.2023 on compromise talks, entitlement heard 28.10.2023) and fixed 16.12.2023 for further hearing. Holding that the Tribunal's findings could be assailed, if the petitioners were aggrieved, against the final award, and that the claim petition being still undecided, the Court declined to entertain the petition at the interim stage, expressly preserving the petitioners' statutory right to appeal against the final award. Petition disposed of.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:7595

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 80 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Manish Kumar And 2 Others Respondent :- The Motor Accident Claim Tribunal North Lko. And 10 Others

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Yadav,Manoj Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- Sandeep Kumar Agrawal,Shivansh Agrawal

¶6

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶7

In pursuance of the order dated 11.01.2024, the learned counsel for the petitioners have filed a supplementary affidavit which is taken on record.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Sanjana Mittal, learned counsel appearing under the authority of Sri Sandeep Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel for the private respondent no. 11.

¶9

The petitioner has approached this Court assailing the order dated 08.11.2023 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (North), Lucknow in Claim Petition No. 4 of 2012.

¶10

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the present petitioners and their deceased mother had initially preferred a claim petition bearing No. 4 of 2012 seeking compensation on account of the death of Sri Ram Kumar who expired in a motor accident on 21/22.06.2011.

¶11

It is urged that during the course of final hearing after the petitioners had partly argued the matter and since a proposal for compromise was floated between the parties, hence, further hearing could not take place.

¶12

However, later on 08.11.2023, the Tribunal heard the parties and has given his finding to the issue as to whether the private respondent no. 11 would be entitled to some part of compensation or not.

¶13

It is urged that the private respondent no. 11 had filed an application for impleadment in the proceedings before the Claims Tribunal alleging herself to be the wife of the deceased Ram Kumar.

¶14

It is in this context that the order dated 08.11.2023 has been passed whereby the Tribunal has given its findings that even though the private respondent no. 11 may not be the legally wedded wife of the deceased yet she was a dependent of the deceased.

¶15

It is submitted that once the hearing had commenced and it was being heard finally, there was no occasion for the Tribunal to have passed the order dated 08.11.2023 in piecemeal and this could have been decided along with other issues. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is prayed that the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

¶16

Ms. Sanjana Mittal, learned counsel for the respondent no. 11 has submitted that in case even if the order dated 08.11.2023 has been passed, it is merely a finding regarding the entitlement of the respondent no. 11 to receive compensation. The claim petition has yet not been decided, if at all, the petitioners are aggrieved, they can always assail the said order, once the claim petition is finally decided as part of the final award.

¶17

Having considered the aforesaid submissions and from the perusal of the material on record, it appears that the present petitioners along with their deceased mother had filed the claim petition seeking compensation on account of the death of Sri Ram Kumar. During the course of the proceedings, the private respondent no. 11 had moved an application for impleadment alleging herself to be the wife of Ram Kumar.

¶18

It is also evident from the material on record including the extracts of the order sheets which have been brought on record along with the supplementary affidavit filed today, it reveals that the matter was being heard finally on 03.10.2023. The matter was partly heard, thereafter it was fixed for 07.10.2023 on which date it was adjourned as there were some talks of compromise between the parties.

¶19

On 28.10.2023, the court heard the parties regarding the entitlement of compensation to the private respondent no. 11 and thereafter the impugned order dated 08.11.2023 was passed fixing 16.12.2023 for further hearing on the merits of the claim petition. In the aforesaid backdrop what this Court finds is that the observations and the findings given by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, North, Lucknow in Claim Petition No. 4 of 2012can very well be assailed by the petitioners, if at all, they aggrieved against the award passed by the Tribunal.

¶20

At this stage, where the matter is yet to be decided finally, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition leaving it

¶21

open for the petitioners to contest the claim petition and in case if they so chose or feel aggrieved they have the statutory remedy of filing an appeal against the final award. Mere filing of this petition and it not being entertained by this Court at this stage will not come in the way of the petitioners in exercise of their statutory rights to file an appeal against the award.

¶22

With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of.

¶23

Order Date :- 25.1.2024 Asheesh

¶24

Digitally signed by :- ASHEESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Manish Kumar and 2 Others v. the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal North Lko. and 10 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish Kumar and 2 Others v. the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal North Lko. and 10 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ranno Devi Vs Krishna Dev and 7 Others

Rajeswari Devi Vs Civil Judge (J.D.) Kadipur Distt. Sultanpur and 2 Others

Smt. Shashi Dixit Vs Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court No. 22, Lko. and 2 Others

Premchand Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gonda and Others

Sarafraji Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bahraich and Others

Ajeet Jha Vs Civil Judge (Senior Division, Court No.38, Barabanki and Others