Allowed

Poonam Singh v. Abhisek Kumar Singh and Ors.

Patna HC9 Jul 2013MA/517/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allows an appeal where the Tribunal failed to specify individual compensation amounts to multiple claimants as required under Rule 246(11) of the Motor Vehicles Rules. The appeal is allowed with a direction to remand the matter to the Tribunal for reconsideration and to pass appropriate orders after hearing all claimants.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is allowed; the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal to consider the application dated 2.12.2008 and pass appropriate orders complying with Rule 246(11) of the Rules.

Poonam Singh Vs Abhisek Kumar Singh and Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Miscellaneous Appeal No.517 of 2009

¶3

====================================================== Poonam Singh widow of Late Bijay Kumar Singh resident of village Bararhi P.S. Brahmpur, District Buxar

¶4

.... .... Appellant/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

Abhisek Kumar Singh son of Kumar Birendra Singh resident of 318 co-operative Colony, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro (owner of the vehicle)

¶7

The Branch Manger, the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Bokaro Steel City at Bokaro

¶8

The Divisional Manager, the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Red Cross Building, North of Gandhi Maidan P.S. Gandhi Maidan, Patna, District Patna

¶9

Smt. Alakh Dulari Devi wife of Sri Jayantri Singh resident of village Bararhi P.S. Brahmpur District Buxar, permanently residing at Quarter No. 222/B North Railway Colony Sahebganj District Sehabganj.

¶10

Jayantri Singh son of Late Surya Narain Singh resident of village Bararhi P.S. Brahmpur District Buxar permanently residing at Quarter No. 222/B North Railway colony Sahebganj District Sahebganj

¶11

.... .... Respondent/s

¶12

====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Vivakanand Vivek, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sanjay Singh, Adv. Mr. Ganpati Trivedi, Adv. Mr. T.P.Verma, Adv. Mr. D.K.Pandey, Adv.

¶13

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER

¶14

7 09-07-2013 I.A.No.6119 of 2009

¶15

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶16

On going through the reasons assigned in the limitation petition

¶17

explaining the delay that has occurred in filing this appeal, I am satisfied with the explanation given in the application. The delay is condoned.

¶18

This interlocutory application is allowed.

¶19

Patna High Court MA No.517 of 2009 (7) dt.09-07-2013

¶20

2 / 4

¶21

M.A. No. 517 of 2009

¶22

Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Ganpati Trivedi, learned counsel for the claimant-respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and Mr. Sanjay Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

¶23

Despite service of notice, the owner respondent No.1 has not chosen to appear.

¶24

The appellant is aggrieved by that part of the judgment and award dated 13.5.2008/24.7.2008 passed by learned 7^th Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, Bhagalpur in Claim Case No. 88 of 2001 whereby and whereunder the learned Tribunal even while allowing the claim case and awarding compensation to the claimants, have failed to discharge its obligation cast under Rule 246 of the Motor Vehicle Rules 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the „Rules‟) framed under the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the „Act‟) and has failed to specify the amount payable to each of the claimants, despite this infirmity having been brought to the notice of the Tribunal vide petition dated 2.12.2008 which was rejected by order passed on 20.1.2009 on the technicalities of Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶25

In the nature of the order which requires to be passed in this appeal, this Court would not delve into the facts of the matter. Suffice it to say that the claim case having been presented before the Tribunal, the same was allowed by the judgment and award aforestated.

¶26

Patna High Court MA No.517 of 2009 (7) dt.09-07-2013

¶27

3 / 4

¶28

The only grievance of the claimant-appellant herein is that the Tribunal even while allowing the claim case has failed to discharge the obligation cast upon the Tribunal in terms of the Rule 246 (11) of the Rules which reads as follows:

¶29

“246(11) Where compensation is awarded to two or more persons, the Claims Tribunals hall also specify the amount payable to each of them”

¶30

It is stated that even when this position was brought to the notice to the Tribunal through the petition filed on 2.12.2008, the same was rejected by the order dated 20.1.2009 placed at Annexure-1 to the appeal.

¶31

I have heard learned counsel for the parties on the issue and the legal position is not disputed by any of them. Admittedly there is no dispute to the failure of the Tribunal to discharge the obligation cast in terms of the Rule 246(11) of the Rules. It is rather surprising that the attention of the Tribunal having been drawn on this aspect the same has been rejected by the order passed on 20.1.2009 by resorting to the technicalities of Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure when admittedly this part of the obligation arose under rule 246 of the Rules.

¶32

In view of the position aforesaid, this matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for reconsideration of the matter in the light of the application filed by the claimant-appellant in the petition dated 2.12.2008 and to pass appropriate orders in the light of the statutory provisions of Section 246 (11) of the Rules and after hearing the other claimants in accordance with law.

¶33

Patna High Court MA No.517 of 2009 (7) dt.09-07-2013

¶34

4 / 4

¶35

An early disposal within a period of six weeks from the date of

¶36

receipt/production of a copy of this order would be appreciated.

¶37

The appeal is allowed with the direction aforesaid.

¶38

(Jyoti Saran, J)

¶39

Bibhash/-

Poonam Singh v. Abhisek Kumar Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Poonam Singh v. Abhisek Kumar Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Divisional Manager, Divisi Vs Ram Narayan Keshri and Ors.

Hafijullah Ansari and Ors. Vs Ishrayl Miya and Ors.

The Divisional Manager Vs Nago Yadav and Ors.

Mala Rani Das Vs Praveer Kumar Singh and Ors.

Branch Manager,National Insura Vs Upendra Pathak and Ors.

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Nazir Ahmad and Ors.