High Court dismissed a petition challenging an interim order by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal regarding compensation entitlement, holding the matter is not fit for consideration as the claim is pending final adjudication.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:7595
Court No. - 8
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 80 of 2024
Petitioner :- Manish Kumar And 2 Others Respondent :- The Motor Accident Claim Tribunal North Lko. And 10 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Yadav,Manoj Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- Sandeep Kumar Agrawal,Shivansh Agrawal
Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
At this stage, where the matter is yet to be decided finally, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition leaving it
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.
With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 25.1.2024 Asheesh
Digitally signed by :- ASHEESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
Manish Kumar And 2 Others
Motor Accident Claim Tribunal North Lko
Jaspreet Singh
As recorded by the court registry
3 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
