Partly allowed

Narendra Kumar Gupta v. Parwati Bai and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC1 Feb 2012WP/3752/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Chhattisgarh allowed a writ petition against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for illegally confiscating Rs. 25,000 deposited under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act after the death of the claimant without returning it to the depositor.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; award of confiscation quashed; Rs. 25,000 returned to depositor.

Narendra Kumar Gupta Vs Parwati Bai and Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPU

¶2

WRIT PETITIQII N0. 3758/2004

¶3

PETmONBR

¶4

PETmONBR Narendra Kuniar Gupta, aged about 52 son of Late years, Munimlal Gupta, r/o Bus Staad Mahasamund, Distt. Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh). VER8US RESPONDENTS 1. Parwati Bai, aged about 60 years, aUeged to be widow of Late Malikram Jaiswal, r/o vfflage Uchchbhatti, P.S. Malkharauda, Distt. Maliasamund (C.G.). 2. Gendlal, ———(Dead& Deleted) 3. The Second Additional Distri.et

¶5

Judge,——————(Deleted)

¶6

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITOTION OFXNDIA.

¶7

(SB :Hon'bIe Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.)

¶8

F'resent:- Mr. C.D. Shanna, Advocate with Mr. Preetam Tiwari, Advooate for the petitioner. None for the respondent No, 1.

¶9

ORDER

¶10

(Passedon 01/02/2012)

¶11

Heard on I.A. No. 2 for deletion ofthe name ofrespondents No. 2 &

¶12

On due consideration I.A. No. 2 is aUowed. Let necessaiy

¶13

amendment be carried out during course ofthe day ia the Court.

¶14

Heard on inerits.

¶15

By fhis petition under Articles 226/227 ofthe Constitution oflndia petitioner has chaUenged fhe legalily and propriely of the order dated 11/5/2004 passed by 2nd Additioual Motor Accident Clamis Tribunal, Baloda Bazar, District Raipur, C.G. (iu short 'the Tribuaal') iu claim case No. 66/1998 whereby while dismissuig fhe claun petition on account of death of claimaat Tribunal has passed the order of coii&scation ofRs. 25.000/- deposited ia coiapliaace of fhe order of flie Tribunal as np fault liabUity.

¶16

Leacued counsel for the petitioner subnuts ttiat no fault UabiLity

¶17

-may be paid to claiinant aad iu case of no claunaut it carmot be

^- u<!.

l.-.;A--.,,» '^ :^;S^1

¶22

confiscated to State, in absence of any rule or proceeduig."^ It appears fhat Tribunal has passed fhe order under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act for payment of no fault liability of Rs. 25,000/- to Maaikrain but after deafh of Maaikram clflim petition has beeii dismissed as no beirs as available. In fhese circuinstauces virtuaUy, Tribunal was under obl^ation either to find out legal representatives of deceased claimaat whom such compensation was payable or to retum amouat to person who has deposited the inoney but whUe passing the order of confiscation, Cozirt below bas conimitted an jUegality. Consequeutty, petition is aUowed. Oider im.pugaed to the extent is hereby quashed. Part of compensation of Rs. 25,000/- be returaed to the person from whose it has been recovered or by whoin it has been deposited. No order as to costs.

¶23

Certified copy as per rules.

¶24

Sd/T.P. Sharma Judge

¶25

i:'!

Narendra Kumar Gupta v. Parwati Bai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narendra Kumar Gupta v. Parwati Bai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mehboob Ali Vs Shambhu Steel Industries

Ishwar Bhatra Vs State of M.P. and Ors.

Laxman Ade Vs Chiraunji Lal

Sahadev Vs Smt. Phulmati and Ors.

Vaman Kumar Namdeo Vs Bhurwa Satnami

Gopalram Dhruw and Anr. Vs Smt.Rambha Bai and Ors.