Fulbasiya @ Birajobai Vs Sunita

¶1

1 / 4

¶2

2024:CGHC:30656

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WP227 No. 122 of 2018

¶6

Fulbasiya @ Birajobai W/o Wd/o Late Babulal Aged About 40 Years Caste- Gond, At Present R/o Village Chanderpur, Tahsil- Ramanujnagar, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner

¶7

versus

¶8

1. Sunita W/o Wd/o Late Babulal Aged About 32 Years R/o Madneshwarpur, P.S. And Tahsil- Ramanujganj, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh At Present R/o Village Putuwa, P.S. And Tahsil- Katghora, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶9

2- Anuk Sai S/o S/o Late Mannu Aged About 58 Years R/o Madneshwarpur, P.S. And TahsilRamanujganj, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶10

3- Punia W/o W/o Anuk Sai R/o Madneshwarpur, P.S. And Tahsil- Ramanujganj, DistrictSurguja, Chhattisgarh

¶11

Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI Date: 2024.08.14 17:41:11 +0530

¶12

4- Rahul D/o S/o Late Babula Aged About 6 Years Minor Through Their Natural Guardian Mother Sunita R/o Madneshwarpur, P.S. And Tahsil- Ramanujganj, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh At Present R/o Village Putuwa, P.S. And Tahsil- Katghora, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶13

5- Rohit D/o S/o Late Babulal Aged About 1 Years Minor Through Their Natural Guardian Mother Sunita R/o Madneshwarpur, P.S. And Tahsil- Ramanujganj, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh At Present R/o Village Putuwa, P.S. And Tahsil- Katghora, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶14

6- Niraj Kashyap D/o S/o Ramshankar Kashyap Aged About 26 Years R/o Civil Line Katni, District- Katni, Madhya Pradesh, District : Katni *, Madhya Pradesh

¶15

7- Mohhammad Anish Menan D/o S/o Abdul Ajij R/o Purani Basti Korba, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶16

8- Branch Manager, Nikmegma Divisional X-V, National Insurance Building First Floor And Indian Exchange Place Kolkata ... Respondents

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr. F. S. Khare, Advocate. For Respondent : None.

¶18

2 / 4

¶19

SB : Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J. Order On Board

¶20

13.08.2024

¶21

This petition has filed been assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 04.12.2017 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Katghora, Korba (in short the “ Tribunal ”) in Misc. Claim Case No.22/2016, whereby application filed by the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC for setting aside the award dated 21.07.2016 passed by the Tribunal in Claim Case No.07/2010, was dismissed.

¶22

Facts of the case are that respondents No.1 to 5 had filed a claim petition before the concerned Tribunal and arrayed respondent No.4 – Smt. Fulbasiya, wife of Late Babulal as a party. The said claim case was decided and award was passed in favour of the claimants on 21.07.2016 for compensation of Rs.7,07,000/- with SI @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim case i.e. 11.01.2016 till its realization. However, the present petitioner, namely, Fulbasiya @ Birajobai has filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC claiming herself to be the wife of deceased Babulal. She has also stated that though she was arrayed as a party in the said claim case, but no notice was served on her. She has also stated that no compensation was awarded in her favour and prayed to set-aside the impugned award. Learned Tribunal after considering the said application reached to the conclusion that petitioner has failed to prove relation with the deceased and rejected the application.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petitioner is the first wife of deceased late Babulal and there was no legal divorce between the petitioner and the deceased, however, the Tribunal has wrongly reached

¶24

3 / 4

¶25

to the conclusion that Fulbasiya is not the wife the deceased. Therefore, impugned order is not sustainable. However, counsel fairly admits that present petitioner has not filed any document to demonstrate that Birajobai and Fulbasiya are the one and the same. He also admitted the fact that present petitioner was residing separately from deceased Babulal for more than 8 years prior to his death and she has been married to one Pitambar and from Pitambar, three children begotten.

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material placed on record.

¶27

Perusal of the order impugned shows that before passing the award though notice was issued through paper publication to non-applicant No.4Fulbasiya, however, she did not appear and against her an ex-parte proceeding was drawn by the Claims Tribunal. During hearing of miscellaneous claim petition, the fact has also come to notice that Fulbasiya has died 21-22 years ago. Further, respondent No.2 Anuk Sai has deposed the similar fact and also produced death certificate issued by the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Madneshwarpur. Though the present petitioner stated that her husband is Babulal, however, during cross-examination, she has categorically admitted the fact that she had married with one Pitambar and residing with him and out of their relation, three children were born. She also admitted that name of father of her children is recorded as Pitambar. Apart from this, petitioner’s witness, namely Rameshwar Singh admits that he is not aware about marriage between Babulal and Fulbasiya. He has only knowledge of present petitioner whose name is Birajobai. Moreover, Nonapplicants’ witness No.2 - Kanwal Say in his statement deposed that

¶28

4 / 4

¶29

Fulbasiya is daugher of his brother and Fulbasiya was married with Babulal. He has also deposed that Fulbasiya has died 4-5 years ago. However, he specifically stated that he does not know who is Birajobai.

¶30

From the aforesaid analysis, it is apparent that the petitioner failed to prove the fact that Birajobai and Fulbasiya are one and the same. Further, the petitioner herself stated that she was residing separately from Babulal several years ago and is married to one Pitambar and also have three children out of their relations. In such circumstances, observation made by the learned Tribunal appears to be just and proper.

¶31

For the foregoing, this Court does not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order and same does not call for any interference by this Court invoking jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶32

Before parting with the case, it is made clear that adjudication and enquiry of the Claims Tribunal is summary in nature, therefore, liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to establish her independent right by way of civil suit, if so advised.

¶33

However, the claim amount, so withhold, shall be disbursed in favour of respondents No.1 to 5/claimants in terms of the award.

¶34

With the aforesaid observation, this petition stands dismissed .

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge

¶37

Ajay

Fulbasiya @ Birajobai v. Sunita

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Fulbasiya @ Birajobai v. Sunita

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

Similar cases

Smt. Meena Agrawal Vs H. D. B. Financial Service Limited

Surendra Aayam Vs Magma Fincorp Ltd.

Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ld, Vs M/S Rajpootana Chables and Conductors Vt. Ltd.

General Manager, South Eastern Coal Field Limited Vs Bhagwandeen

Smt. Lalit Vs Ramgovind

Smt. Yashodhara Goswami Vs Manoj Pingua