Disposed¶16

M/S Sundaram Finance v. Motor Accident Claim Tribunal and 5 Others

Allahabad HC18 Feb 2026A227/2096/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 227; Allahabad High Court; M/S Sundaram Finance v. Motor Accident Claim Tribunal; ex-parte award of 2016; recovery of compensation from insurer/financier; review application under Section 151/152; prayer to delete name from award; disbursement of compensation to claimants; F.A.F.O. No. 1388 of 2016; supplementary affidavit within three weeks; listed fresh 23.03.2026; interim order; no final adjudication.

What did the court decide?

Interim order only: petitioner to file supplementary affidavit within three weeks regarding disbursement of compensation; no direction issued on the review application at this stage; matter to be put up as fresh on 23.03.2026. ¶16

M/S Sundaram Finance vs Motor Accident Claim… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2026)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2096 of 2026

M/S Sundaram Finance

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

Motor Accident Claim Tribunal And 5 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Ashutosh Sharma
Counsel for Respondent(s)	:

¶9

Court No. - 5

¶10

HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

¶11

Prayer for expeditious disposal of review application filed by the present petitioner has been made in this petition.

¶12

The record indicates that in Motor Accident Claim Petition, the present petitioner was defendant no. 2. The petition was decided ex-parte against it on account of non-appearance despite service of notice. The award is against the petitioner also in the sense that recovery of compensation has been directed to be made from the petitioner also.

¶13

A perusal of the review application indicates that the same has been filed under Section 151/152 with a prayer to delete the name of the present petitioner from the award.

¶14

The award was passed in the year 2016. As to what happened thereafter that is to say whether claimants have received compensation and as to what happened in F.A.F.O. No. 1388 of 2016, reference whereof is contained in paragraph 24 of the petition, is not clear.

¶15

Before issuing any direction to consider the review application of such nature, this Court wants to satisfy itself about the grievance of the claimants as regards disbursement of compensation or any part thereof.

¶16