Allowed

Balsingh and Ors. v. Lalit Kumar Sinha and Anr.

Chhattisgarh HC5 Feb 2014MAC/81/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal against the Motor Awards Tribunal's dismissal of two claim cases filed for the same motor accident death. The Court set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter for fresh disposal, emphasizing the benevolent nature of the Act and the need to avoid victimizing claimants.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 10.11.2010 setting aside both claim cases dismissed by the Tribunal was set aside and the matter was remitted to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication of Claim Case No. 10/10.

Balsingh and Ors. Vs Lalit Kumar Sinha and Anr. — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

r'rr??s^ •* l: -^ ^'3

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT^ILASPUR, CHHATTISGARH

¶4

MISC. APPEAL ( C

¶5

1 N0. S, \ OF 2011

¶6

APPELLANTS/ 1. CLAIMANTS

¶7

¶8

Balsingh, S/o Rara Prasad, aged about 45 years.

¶9

Smt. Rajaya Bai, W/o Balsingh Netam', aged about 35 years.

¶10

-Smt. Shanti Netam, W/o Late Shri Arjun Netam, aged about 22 years.

¶11

' '•" .••'/
4.
,V^ ..••"'~-)y' ..•;'
..••""':,y; ,;-'^\
/^ /^c<br>•><?'.^.>'""^
o^ o.>'"
vy

¶12

Kr. Varsha Netam, D/o Late Shri Arjun Netam, aged about 2 years. Through natural guardian mother Smt. Shanti Netam, W/o Late Shri Arjun Netam.

¶13

All are residents of village Vyapari Para, Bahigaon, Tahsil Keshkal, District Bastar (CG).

¶14

Ver'sus

¶15

RESPONDENT/ OWNER 85 DRIVER

¶16

Lalit Kumar Sinha, S/o Ramchand Sinha, R/o village Tendubhata, Tahsil Keshkal, District Bastar (CG).

¶17

Owner 85 Driver of Jeep bearing registration No. CG-04-T-1817

¶18

RESPONDENT/ 2.

¶19

INSURER

¶20

The United Insurance Company Limited, Raipur, through its Diyisional Manager, Divisional Office, The United Insurance Company Limited, Raipur (CG).

¶21

Insurer - Policy No. 190500/31/09/02/00006926

¶22

MEMO OF MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECJTIQN IT^OF^THE

¶23

MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988

¶24

¶25

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶26

SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Pritinker Diwaker

M.A.(c)No.81 of 2011

Appellant claimants

Balsingh and others

VERSUS

Respondents

Lalit Kumar Sinha and another

¶33

Present:

¶34

Shri SRJ Jaiswal, counsel forthe appellants. Shri Sunil Sahu, counsel for respondent No.1.

¶35

Shri Dashrath Gupta, counsel for respondent No.2.

¶36

ORDER

¶37

(5.2.2014)

¶38

With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.

¶39

On 4.2.2010 Arjun Netam was dashed by a jeep bearing registration No. C.G. 04-T-1817 as a result ofwhich he died. 03. On 10.3.2010 a claim case No. 10/2010 was filed by the claimants claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.9 lacs from the

¶40

respondents.

¶41

From perusal of the record of claim case No.23/10, it appears that another claim case was also filed on behalf of the appellants/claimants on 12.7.2010 in relation to the same accident between the same parties, which was registered as claim case No.23/10.

¶42

Vide order dated 10.11.2010, Motor AccidentClaims Tribunal (FTC), Kondagaon, Bastar (in short "the Tribunal") dismissed both the claim cases filed by the claimants i.e. claim case No. 10/10 and claim case No.23/10 on the ground that the claimants have not approached the Tribunal with clean hands.

¶43

The order dated 10.11.2010 in relation to claim case No.10/10 has been assailed by the claimants before this Court in the present appeal.

¶44

¶45

':* y1

¶46

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the claimants are tribal villagers and were not aware about filing of two separate claim cases on their behalf. He submits that in most ofthe claim cases, it is the lawyers who obtain signatures of the claimants and file cases. In the present case also, two separate claim cases were filed by two separate lawyers and this fact was not within the knowledge of the claimants. He further submits that in all fairness, the Tribunal should have decided the first claim case i.e. claim case No. 10/10 filed by the claimants and could have asked the claimants to withdraw the subsequent case i.e. claim case No.23/10.

¶47

On the other hand, leafned counsel appearing for the respondents have supported the impugned order. 09. Undisputedly, the claimants are poor tribal and even if they had filed two separate claim cases for the same cause of action i.e. death of Arjun Netam, the Tribunal should have been vigilant while passing the order dismissing both the claim cases. If the Tribunal was of the view that two cases for the same cause of action can not survive, then it could have asked the claimants to prosecute one case and withdraw the other case. While passing the order, the Tribunal should have kept in mind that the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 are benevolent in nature, they are made to safeguard the interests of the claimants and the claimants should not be victimized or deprived of their legal entitlement.

¶48

From the orderdated 10.11.2010 passed in claim case No.23/10, it appears that a verbatim order has been passed by the Tribunal while dismissing the claim case No. 10/10. Thus, the order impugned is patently illegal and erroneous and has been passed in a mechanical manner, ignoring the basic provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. The order impugned appears to have-been passed by the Tribunal on the basis of hyper technicalities ignoring the fact that the enactment applicable in this case is purely a benevolent one and in the case in hand the deceased was a young lad of 25 years. If the Tribunal hinges itself on hyper technical fulcrum, the basic behind the purpose enactmentwould be frustrated.

3, -

-.^.'^"

In view of the reasons mentioned above, the appeal is allowed and the order impugned is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Tribunal for deciding the claim case No. 10/10 filed by the claimants afresh in accordance with law after providing due opportunities to the parties.

¶53

Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 24th March, 2014. If on that date, the claimants fail to appear before the Tribunal, the Tribunal shall issue notices to them and ensure recording of their

¶54

presence.

¶55

Since the claim case relates to death of a young man who expired on 4.2.2010 i.e. abouj; four years back and till date the claimants have not received a single penny, not even the amount under the "No Fault Liability", the Tribunal to ensure disposal ofthe main case i.e. claim case No. 10/10 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from next date of hearing. The Tribunal would also ensure that the claimants may not be harassed by their counsel as two separate set of lawyers were engaged by them.

¶56

Registry is directed to send a copy of this order immediately to the District Judge, Bastar as well as District Judge, Kondagaon to ensure compliance of this order.

¶57

Registry is also directed to send back the record to the concerned Tribunal by Friday i.e. 7th February, 2014.

¶58

Certified copv todav.

¶59

—-—7 Sd/pritinkerDiwaker Judge

¶60

Balsingh and Ors. v. Lalit Kumar Sinha and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balsingh and Ors. v. Lalit Kumar Sinha and Anr.

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

Pawan Kumar Tamrakar Vs Smt. Dhaneshwari Bai Sinha and Ors.

Prem Kumar Megi Vs Satish Sankhala

The New India Ass.Co.Ltd.Bilaspur Vs Smt. Sam Bai and Others

Pradeeep Enmanual Robinson Vs Addl. Superintending Engineer and Ors.

Jitendra Kumar Sahu Vs Dharam Prakash Tiwari and Ors.

Mahadev Dhruve Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.